[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Shridhar Uttamrao Vakre on 17 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:1686
ALS-8-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 8 OF 2022
The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant
Versus
Shridhar Uttamrao Vakre ...Respondents
***
• Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for Applicant/State
• Mr. A. R. Devakate, Advocate for the Respondent
***
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
RESERVED ON : JANUARY 16, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 17, 2026
ORDER :
1. In this application, state has invoked provisions under
Section 378(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure urging to grant leave to
file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.10.2021
passed by learned Special Judge, Beed in ACB Case No. 11/2015.
2. Learned APP would apprise this Court about the
background of the case that, for clearing bill allegedly tendered by
complainant towards supply of grains for a period from November-
December, 2013, accused, a clerk in the District Supply Office,
demanded bribe by way of commission of 8% of the total cost of the bill.
Complainant as was not willing to pay bribe, lodged report Exhibit 34,
PAGE 1 OF 6
ALS-8-2022.odt
which was made the basis for investigation after planning trap. Learned
APP pointed out that, initially verification of demand was got done by
recording conversation in the tape reorder followed by drawing of pre-
trap panchnama. He submitted that, thereafter both complainant and
shadow panch, and independent witnesses were given necessary
instructions. They both had approached accused, who allegedly raised
demand and also accepted the bribe amount. Learned APP pointed out
that, there were anthracene traces substantiating acceptance. Thus,
according to learned APP, essential ingredients of the charges were
available, but the same has not been correctly appreciated by learned
Trial Court.
3. He further pointed out that, here learned Trial Court had
held sanction to be valid but by adopting hyper technical approach,
acquitted the accused. He pointed out that, defence of accused is readily
accepted even when it was not probabilized. Moreover, there was
sufficient material to attract presumption under Section 20 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act to record guilt of the accused. He pointed
out that, acquittal was result of improper appreciation and non
consideration of settled legal position. For above reasons, he submits
that, as State has good case on merits in Appeal, he prays to grant
leave.
PAGE 2 OF 6
ALS-8-2022.odt
4. In answer to above, learned Counsel for Accused, who would
supports the judgment and order of acquittal, would point out that, the
prosecution has miserably failed to bring home charge. He pointed out
that, in fact no work found to be was pending with accused to accept the
case of prosecution regarding complainant approaching accused and he
further putting up demand of bribe. Learned Counsel pointed out that,
crucial aspect of very demand has not been substantiated by prosecution
and on this count, he took through the evidence of PW1 and 2 and the
cross and would submit that, these witnesses made statement before
the Trial Court that alleged demand was by way of gesture and there
was no oral demand. He pointed out that, complainant and shadow
panch witness are inconsistent and giving contrary versions on the
point of demand and, therefore, learned Trial Court rightly disbelieved
the case of prosecution on the point of demand. He pointed out that,
material contradictions, which have emerged in the evidence of
important witness PW 2 Shadow Panch, are got proved through
investigation officer. He pointed out that, in fact there was hand loan
transaction between complainant and accused and the very report
Exhibit 34 carries material to that extent. That, the amount accepted
were towards said transactions and not being bribe, he justifies the
acceptance of defence version by the Trial Court as to be probabilized
PAGE 3 OF 6
ALS-8-2022.odt
and for all above reasons, he prays to refuse leave for want of merits.
5. On the line of above submissions, record is put to the
scrutiny.
6. It is emerging that, on complaint of one Santosh Shehrao
Jogdand, ACB authorities planned and executed trap. Report was
received that, for clearing bill for supply of food grains, there was
demand of 8% of the bill amount. Part payment was said to be made and
before remaining amount is paid, ACB authorities entertained
complaint of PW1. Case of prosecution is rested on evidence of PW1
Complainant, PW2 Shadow Panch, PW 3 Sanctioning Authority, and
PW 4 Investigating Officer. It seems that, investigating machinery
initially got demand verified and also drew pre-trap panchanama i.e. by
recording conversation between complainant and accused and
thereafter made complainant and shadow panch go together to the office
of accused and to pay bribe on demand and relay necessary signal.
Evidence of PW1 Compaliant is at 32 and shadow panch 51. Attention
of this Court being invited to the cross of these two witnesses, it is
indeed and it is clearly emerging that, according to complainant,
accused put up oral demand, however, according to investigating officer,
complainant in his statement recorded post trap had stated that
accused has demanded amount by way of gesture. Similarly, PW 2
PAGE 4 OF 6
ALS-8-2022.odt
shadow panch has also stated about gesture and moreover, his evidence
shows that he was not in the company of complainant during
conversation between complainant and accused and he has admitted
that he was away from both of them. Therefore, there is no
corroboration to the accept of very demand.
7. Mere finding currency in the hand of accused would not
justify the acceptance of bribe amount unless demand is cogently
proved.
8. Defence taken in Trial Court is that, there were hand loan
transaction between complainant and accused. As pointed out, by
learned Counsel for accused in report Exhibit 34 complainant has stated
about earlier acquaintance and transaction with accused and himself.
Therefore, when said defence of accused is not rendered doubtful,
learned Trial Court has committed no error in accepting said defence to
be probabilized.
9. As regards to submissions raised before this Court by
learned APP regarding Trial Court failed to invoke Section 20 of the P.C.
Act, here, as stated above, the very foundational fact of demand itself
has come under shadow of doubt. Therefore, presumption under Section
20 was rightly not invoked by Trial Court and reason to that extent is
PAGE 5 OF 6
ALS-8-2022.odt
also found to be assigned by Trial Judge.
10. In the light of contrary versions of complainant and shadow
panch and the contradictions proved through investigating officer as
submitted, case of prosecution in Trial Court was itself weak. Therefore,
as no point is made out on merits to accord, the leave deserves to be
refused. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(a) Leave is refused.
(b) Application for leave to appeal stands rejected.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh
PAGE 6 OF 6
