[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

The State Of Mah vs Pratapsing Habusing Rajput on 17 January, 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:1651


                                                                    CriAppeal-207-2009
                                                  -1-


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 207 OF 2009


                The State of Maharashtra,
                Through
                Shri Dattatraya Karbhari Ghuge,
                PI Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon.              ... Appellant

                        Versus

                Shri Pratapsing Babusing Rajput,
                Age : 48 years, Occupation : Talathi,
                Saja Khirdi Khurd, Taluka Raver,
                District : Jalgaon.                              ... Respondent
                                                                 [Ori. Accused]
                                                   .....
                              Mr. S. K. Shirse, APP for the Appellant-State
                          Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the Respondent
                                                   .....

                                         CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                         Reserved on        : 13.01.2026
                                         Pronounced on      : 17.01.2026


                JUDGMENT :

1. State questions the acquittal of present respondent from

charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) to (c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act vide judgment and order dated

28.07.2008 passed by Special Judge, Jalgaon in Special Case No. 3 of

2007.

CriAppeal-207-2009

FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE APPEAL

2. In brief, PW1 complainant approached Talathi office for

issuance of 7/12 extract showing no encumbrance over the property.

It is prosecution's case that, for said work Talathi initially demanded

Rs.500/- and subsequently brought down the figure to Rs.400/-.

Complainant, as was not willing to pay bribe, approached ACB office

and lodged complaint Exhibit 13, which was made basis of

investigation. Independent panchas were arranged and PW5

Investigating Officer planned and executed trap on 26.08.2015 which

turned out to be successful and accused was apprehended with

tainted currency, which he accepted form PW1 complainant after

putting up demand, and accused was duly chargesheeted and tried.

3. Prosecution adduced evidence of in all five witnesses and relied

on documentary evidence. After appreciating the substantive evidence

of witnesses and taking into account the written statement of defence,

vide above judgment, learned trial court reached to a finding that

prosecution failed to prove demand of bribe or its acceptance beyond

reasonable doubt and holding defence version to be probable, finally

acquitted the accused. Hence instant appeal.

CriAppeal-207-2009

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the Appellant-State :

4. Learned APP would submit that there was demand of bribe of

Rs.500/- by accused Talathi. Subsequently it was reduced to Rs.400/-.

On receipt of complaint to that extent, PW5 IO planned trap during

which independent panchas were made available, they were

introduced to complainant and his case and thereafter both,

complainant and shadow pancha, were sent to approach Talathi and

to pay bribe on demand and relay pre-determined signal. According

to learned APP, both witnesses PW1 complainant and PW3 shadow

pancha, in their evidence have consistently deposed about demand

being made, it being complied by complainant and bribe amount

being accepted by accused. He pointed out that, there was recovery of

tainted currency from the possession of accused and therefore, it is his

submission that, both, demand as well as acceptance, were proved

and the same ought to have been considered and appreciated and

ought to have held charges proved but learned trial Judge failed to do

so.

5. Learned APP further submitted that, here, evidence of PW1

complainant and PW3 shadow pancha on the core of the case of

prosecution has remained intact. That, in spite of lengthy cross, CriAppeal-207-2009

witnesses have not yielded to the same and have rather stuck up to

the case of prosecution and therefore, their testimonies were worthy

of credence and rather sufficient to bring home the charges.

6. He further submitted that, prosecution had examined very

sanctioning authority who accorded sanction. That, said witness had

deposed about applying mind to the papers received by him, and

being competent and authorized by Collector, sanction was perfectly

valid. However, according to learned APP, the same also is not

correctly considered and appreciated by the trial court and finding

about non-application of mind is erroneous one.

7. Lastly he submitted that, benefit of doubt has been given to the

accused by accepting his defence which, according to him, was per se

weak and was not supported by any evidence and that, as defence

was not probabilized, it is his submission that, the same ought not to

have been considered. For all above reasons, learned APP seeks

indulgence by allowing the appeal.

On behalf of the Respondent-accused :

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, who would

support the acquittal, would point out that prosecution had miserably CriAppeal-207-2009

failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. According to

him, witnesses, more particularly PW1 and PW3, who were in

company of each other, are not consistent on material count. He

pointed out that, according to PW1 complainant, demand was raised

and after acceptance, tainted currency was kept by accused in his

right pant pocket. But contrary to him, PW3 had deposed about

tainted currency after acceptance being kept in the right shirt pocket.

Therefore, very acceptance, according to him, has come under

shadow of doubt.

9. Learned counsel pointed out that in trial court, specific defence

set up was that, accused was distributing compensation to other

farmers for loss of their crop and at that time, complainant had

arrived. That, the amount to be distributed was intermittently kept on

the table to be paid and then kept back in the pocket by accused after

each of the farmer was paid and at that time, complainant had also

placed tainted currency along with other currency on the table which

unknowingly was also collected by accused and pocketed. He invited

attention of the court to the written statement of defence to that

extent. Thus, according to him, accused has successfully proved his

defence by probabilizing the same to a larger extent and the same

was rightly accepted by the trial court.

CriAppeal-207-2009

10. On the point of sanction, he would submit that, firstly accused

was appointed by Collector of which there is admission by PW2 who

is Sub Divisional Officer. That, sanction was not accorded by

Collector, but by PW2 who was subordinate to Collector and

moreover, he had not applied mind to the papers which were

apparently photocopies and not originals, and draft sample was put to

use. Therefore, according to him, learned trial court rightly held

sanction to be also invalid. Lastly, he submitted that there is correct

appreciation by the trial court. Benefit of doubt has been extended as

prosecution failed to discharge its primary burden of proving the

charges. He urged to maintain the order of acquittal by bearing in

mind the principles while dealing with appeal against acquittal.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT

11. On above lines, evidence of PW1 complainant, PW3 shadow

pancha, PW2 sanctioning authority and finally of PW5 IO, which is

crucial and essential, is put to scrutiny. Here, trial court has dwelt

extensively on the aspect as to whether there was really any work

with accused. It was not necessary, more particularly in the light of

charges framed and it was only expected of prosecution to establish

that there was demand and acceptance of bribe and that, sanction

was in order.

CriAppeal-207-2009

12. Be it so. Testimonies of PW1 and PW3 are initially put to

scrutiny. They are examined at Exhibits 7 and 23 respectively. Initial

testimonies of both these witnesses are on the point of planning of

trap. Here, it is pertinent to note that, no pre-trap verification is got

done by the investigating machinery and directly PW1 and PW3 are

instructed to approach accused and to pay on demand and thereafter

rely signal.

13. PW1 complainant, regarding the events that took place on the

day of final trap, has deposed in para 15. According to him, after

greeting Talathi, certificate of 'No Dues' was demanded by this

witness, upon which accused allegedly told him that he would deliver

him form 9 to be duly filled and brought back after signatures of his

father and Branch Manager are obtained over it, and accordingly

accused himself filled the form and delivered it to complainant. He

deposed that, thereafter accused asked him about his money and

therefore, he delivered currency to the accused which accused

allegedly accepted and kept it in his right pant pocket and this was

followed by rely of signal and arrival of raiding party to apprehend

the accused.

CriAppeal-207-2009

Though this witness is extensively crossed, relevant cross

commences from para 25, wherein accused has suggested his case

wherein this witness has answered that, when they entered the office

of Talathi, already four to five persons were sitting there including

Kotwal Anant Koli. He also answered that accused was busy in his

work and on the table some documents and register were lying. He

answered that accused told him to sit and accused continued to do

the work of other villagers. He expressed his ignorance whether

accused that day was busy in distributing Government compensation

to the villagers on account of loss of income in agriculture due to

heavy rains and he also expressed his ignorance whether villagers had

gathered to receive compensation. Rest all suggestions put in para 26

are denied by this witness.

14. PW3 who is examined at Exhibit 23, in para 9 narrated the

events which took place after visiting the office of accused while he

was accompanying PW1. According to him, after approaching

accused, complainant wished accused and he told them to sit.

According to this witness, complainant asked accused to delete the

entry of encumbrance. That time accused had inquired whether

amount was brought as was told earlier. Complainant gave answer in CriAppeal-207-2009

affirmative and then accused gave form no.9 to complainant and

asked him to bring signature of his father and accused again asked

complainant what about his money, which according to this witness,

was taken out by complainant and handed to accused who accepted it

and kept it in the right shirt pocket, after which complainant went out

and gave signal.

Above witness is also subjected to cross, and he too in para 17

of the cross has admitted that, when he entered the office of accused,

four to five persons were sitting around the accused and he was

engaged in his work and he told them to wait. He admitted that

conversation took place between accused and complainant and

complainant delivered some documents to accused and thereafter

complainant demanded 'No Loan' certificate, upon which accused

asked him to first fill form no. 9. In para 19, he answered that he does

not know whether accused was distributing amount to farmers. But

he denied that, at that time accused was distributing amount by

taking it out from his own pocket. In further cross he admitted that,

he had procured copies of his statement recorded by ACB authorities

after receipt of summons.

CriAppeal-207-2009

ANALYSIS

15. Therefore, here, as pointed out, though PW1 and PW3 are in

company of each other and they both claim that accused asked about

his money to complainant AND that time complainant handed it over

to accused, but as pointed out, according to PW1, accused pocketed

the tainted currency in his right pant pocket, whereas contrary to it,

PW3 deposed about accused pocketing the amount in his right shirt

pocket. Therefore, on the acceptance part, witnesses are not

consistent.

16. Specific defence by way of written statement at Exhibit 44 by

accused is that, he was distributing compensation to farmers and

when every time he took out the money to be paid to them, he kept it

on the table, paid the particular farmer and then again kept the

currency in his pocket and at that time, it is his case that, complainant

had put tainted currency on the same table. There are suggestions to

complainant as well as shadow pancha to that extent. It is pertinent to

note that complainant has merely expressed his ignorance about such

activity undertaken by accused at that point of time. There is no

denial that amount of Rs.9000/- was found in the pocket of accused.

Such amount was inclusive of alleged tainted currency. In the light of

such written statement, it was expected of prosecution to examine the CriAppeal-207-2009

very farmers who were allegedly present on the same day at same

time to unearth the truth, but no independent witnesses, who were

present there, were examined by prosecution for best reasons known

to it.

17. It is fairly settled position that accused is not expected to

probabilize his defence to the hilt to which prosecution is expected to

establish the charges. Here, apart from placing written statement on

record, there are suggestions to the prosecution witnesses which are

not refuted by complainant himself, but he has merely expressed his

ignorance. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that,

defence has been probabilized to a larger extent.

18. As regards to validity of sanction is concerned, admittedly PW2-

an SDO, has admitted that appointment was by Collector and not by

him. Moreover, he has accepted in cross that he received photocopies

of the investigation papers for according sanction. He has admitted

about receipt of draft sanction. Said draft sample is at Exhibit 22. For

the more reason, there is no independent application of mind, that

too, to the original investigation papers. Therefore, even aspect of

sanction comes under shadow of doubt.

CriAppeal-207-2009

19. This is an appeal against acquittal. While dealing with appeal

against acquittal, principles to be borne in mind are enumerated in

numerous landmark judgments viz Sheo Swarup V King Emperor, AIR

1934 PC 227, Surajpal Singh v. State AIR 1952 SC 52, Tulsiram Kanu

v. State AIR 1954 SC 1, Madan Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. AIR

1954 SC 637, Atley v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807, Aher Raja

Khima v. State of Saurashtra AIR 1956 SC 217, Chandrappa V. State

of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P. (2008)

10 SCC 450, State of Rajasthan v. Naresh (2009) 9 SCC 368 and

State of U.P. v. Banne (2009) 4 SCC 271.

Very recently the Hon'ble Apex court, in the case of Mallappa

and others v. State of Karnataka 2014 INSC 104 [Criminal Appeal No.

1162 of 2011 decided on 12.02.2024, has culled out the principles

which are reproduced as under :

i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;

CriAppeal-207-2009

ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favor of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity, or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."

20. To sum up, here, case of prosecution is rendered doubtful on

two counts. The aspect of acceptance of bribe and pocketing it by

accused is distinctly narrated by PW1 and PW3 in spite of being

present together. There is no pre-trap verification. Thirdly,

sanctioning authority has put to use draft sanction, suggesting non-

CriAppeal-207-2009

application of independent mind. Therefore, the view taken by trial

court on above counts cannot be faulted at and further interfered with

by allowing appeal. The view taken by trial court is probable view

that could emerge even on complete re-appreciation. No case being

made out on merits, following order is passed :