[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Ramkrushna S/O Vitthalrao Dhumal on 21 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:2386
Cri-Appeal-582-2015
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.582 OF 2015
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Anti Corruption Bureau, Beed. ... Appellant
(Orig. Complainant)
Versus
Ramkrushna S/o. Vitthalrao Dhumal,
Age : 53 years, Occu. : Lineman [Technician],
MSEDCL Ambajogai, Unit No.2,
Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. ... Respondent.
(Orig. Accused)
.....
Mr.S. G. Sangle, APP for Appellant - State.
Mr.C. C. Deshpande h/f. Mr.C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 20 JANUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 21 JANUARY 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Appellant State questions the judgment and order dated
29.01.2015 passed by learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions
Judge, Ambajogai in Special (ACB) Case No. 2 of 2013 acquitting
accused from charge under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. In brief, on receipt of complaint from one Shaikh Noor
Shaikh Nabi (PW1), that for reducing excess bill, accused demanded
Rs.25,000/- bribe and on negotiants brought it down to Rs.20,000/-.
Cri-Appeal-582-2015
On receipt of complaint to that extent, PW4 Investigating Officer
carried out investigation, charge-sheeted accused, who was tried for
above charges before learned Special Judge, Ambajogai. Case of
prosecution is rested on in all four witnesses. After appreciating the
oral and documentary evidence adduced by prosecution, learned trial
Judge reached to a finding that, prosecution has failed to bring home
the charges and vide above order acquitted the accused. Hence,
aggrieved by the said order, the State has come up in an appeal.
3. Learned APP, who contested the appeal, would apprise
the court with the above factual background and then submit that
after lodgment of prompt complaint, investigation machinery
arranged independent panch witness. Both, complainant and panch
witness, were given necessary instructions to be followed by
executing the trap. He pointed out that, only on verification of
demand, trap was led and it was successful, but still learned trial
court disbelieved the case of prosecution.
4. He further submitted that, PW1 Shaikh Noor and PW2
Nandkishor had both stuck to the core of prosecution case on the
point of demand as well as acceptance. Their evidence has remained
unshaken and evidence of Investigating Officer has also remained
intact, but the same is incorrectly appreciated.
Cri-Appeal-582-2015
5. He further pointed out that, necessary sanction was also
obtained from higher authority, who was also examined by
prosecution, but still such evidence has not been correctly
appreciated by passing perverse judgment and so he prays to allow
the appeal.
6. Per contra, justifying the conclusion of acquittal, learned
counsel for accused pointed out that, prosecution has miserably
failed to bring home the charges. According to him, at the threshold,
prosecution has utterly failed to establish that there was demand.
That, prior to the demand, complainant had handed over the money.
That, when demand itself is not proved, according to him, entire
edifice of prosecution collapsed. He pointed out that, it was essential
for the prosecution to establish very demand and in absence of it,
charges cannot be said to be proved. Here, complainant and shadow
panch, both speak about complainant on his own accord giving
money prior to the demand. Therefore, with such quality of evidence,
he justifies the order of acquittal.
7. He further pointed out that, complaint itself was shown to
be not at the instance of PW1 and rather this witness has admitted
that it was narrated by his son, who is unfortunately not examined
Cri-Appeal-582-2015
and therefore, it is pointed out that, case of prosecution about
receiving complaint from PW1 to whom prosecution has examined is
not the author of the complaint, and therefore, unable to state its
contents. It is pointed out that, in cross examinaton, PW1 has
admitted about filing complaint on suggestion of his son and his
friends. Learned counsel further invited attention of the court to the
admission by complainant, in paragraph 9 of the cross, that accused
himself asked for what purpose amount is paid, to which complainant
allegedly replied that your officer knows about it. Thus, it is
submitted that, such answer creates doubt about very demand and
acceptance. Lastly, it is submitted that, in the light of such quality of
evidence, there is no perversity in the order of acquittal.
8. Admittedly, evidence of PW1 complainant and PW2
shadow panch is of significance in cases of such nature. In evidence
at Exh.21 PW1 complainant has deposed about approaching accused
on receipt of electricity bill, which according to him, was excess. It is
his version that, accused demanded Rs.25,000/- for settlement of
matter, but on negotiations it brought down to Rs.20,000/- and he
made upfront payment of Rs.5,000/-. However, as pointed out, when
such instances took place has not been elaborated by complainant. In
cases of such nature, complainant being interested witness,
corroboration from independent corner is always insisted for. Here,
Cri-Appeal-582-2015
there is no corroboration to the above testimony. In paragraph 5 of
his testimony, wherein the events which took place at the Rajdhani
Hotel at Ambajogai where, he, panch witness and accused met, are
revisited and it is noticed that after meeting at the juice bar, he
deposed about paying amount to the accused after taking juice which
was said to be accepted. Thus, here as pointed out, there is
apparently no demand by accused, however, prior to itself, money is
shown to have been given to the accused. As pointed out, complainant
has admitted that, on advise and suggestions of his son and his
friends, complaint has been reported. The answer given in paragraph
9 of the cross examination shows that accused is not aware for what
complainant handed over the amount.
9. PW2 Nandkishor, who is examined at Exh.50, deposed
that he and complainant approached accused in juice bar and there
after taking juice, complainant asked accused to reduce the amount,
but accused refused and then complainant handed over bribe amount
to accused. Therefore, even this witness like complainant deposed
about handing over bribe without demand. In paragraph 7 of cross
examination, he has admitted that in his statement he has reported
about complainant requesting accused to reduce the amount, but
accused refused. On such statement being confronted to this witness,
witness has admitted that, above version is not appearing therein
Cri-Appeal-582-2015
and therefore, it is clear that he has improvised his version.
10. Further two witnesses are sanctioning authority and
Investigating Officer. However, the evidence of above two witnesses
clearly suggest that, there was no demand. When the sine qua non
like demand of bribe itself is not proved, rest of the prosecution case
collapses.
11. Perused the judgment under challenge. In the considered
opinion of this court, there is no illegality of perversity while
acquitting the accused. The view taken by trial court is the possible
which could emerge on complete re-appreciation by this court also.
Hence, the following order is passed :
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
