[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Mangal Kalidas Shrikant on 23 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:2847
ALS-133-2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 133 OF 2025
The State of Maharashtra,
Through : Police Inspector,
Police Station, City Chowk, Aurangabad,
District Aurangabad. ... Applicant
(Ori. Prosecution)
Versus
Mangal Kalidas Shrikant,
Age : 52 years, Occu. Service Sr. Clerk,
R/o. Flat No. 4, Udyog Onkar Apartment,
Ulkanagari, District Aurangabad. ... Respondent
(Ori. Accused)
.....
Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the Applicant-State.
Ms. Monica Bagwe, Advocate for the Respondent.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 22.01.2026
Pronounced on : 23.01.2026
ORDER :
1. This application for leave is by State on account of judgment
and order of acquittal dated 09.05.2025 passed by learned Special
Judge (P.C. Act), Aurangabad in Special Case (ACB) No. 100028 of
2013.
2. In brief, present respondent Mangal, who was working as a
clerk in Municipal Corporation, allegedly demanded bribe to the tune
ALS-133-2025
of Rs.2,000/- from complainanat for mutating his name on account of
transfer of property. On negotiations, said figure was brought down
to Rs.1,000/-. Complainant, as was not willing to pay the bribe, he
approached ACB, lodged complaint on the basis of which, trap was
planned and executed and after apprehension of accused, she was
chargesheeted and tried by the Special Judge for commission of
offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'PC Act').
3. In support of its case, prosecution adduced evidence of in all
four witnesses. Learned Judge appreciated the oral and documentary
evidence and on analyzing the same, reached to a finding that,
prosecution failed to prove the charges, and by extending benefit of
doubt, acquitted the accused vide judgment and order dated
09.05.2025.
4. It is the above order which is intended to be questioned and
therefore, learned APP would point out that here, after receipt of
complaint, independent pancha was called and necessary instructions
were given to complainant as well as shadow pancha. That, even prior
to main trap, demand verification was got done. That, script of the
conversation which was tape-recorded, was also obtained and finally,
ALS-133-2025
on 03.06.2013, main trap was executed. That, accused demanded
bribe and thereafter complainant complied, upon which she accepted
the bribe and kept it in the purse. That, there were anthracene traces
to her hand as well as the purse. Thus, according to learned APP,
prosecution had established both, demand and acceptance, beyond
reasonable doubt and therefore, by applying Section 20, learned trial
court ought to have drawn presumption for accepting the case of
prosecution. He pointed out that there is erroneous appreciation of
evidence. That, even the finding that, there was no work of
complainant with accused, is erroneous. That, sanction also was
perfectly valid, but such evidence was not taken into account and as
such, according to him, prosecution has a good case on merits in
appeal and consequently he prays to accord leave.
5. In answer to above, learned counsel for the respondent-accused
would point that, at the threshold, there was a delayed complainant.
Secondly, according to her, complainant had no work at all with the
accused and this has been admitted by the very sanctioning authority
and therefore, it is her submission that, there being no motive,
question of demand of bribe does not arise. She emphasized that
accused was mere clerk who was involved in the work of mere
processing the application, and she was not authorized to carry out or
ALS-133-2025
grant mutation entries. That, in fact it was the work of ward officer
and there is admission of prosecution's own witnesses to that extent.
6. As regards to demand is concerned, she pointed out that there
was no oral or verbal demand and rather, it was allegedly by means
by gestures which in no terms indicated demand of bribe. She further
pointed out that, as regards to acceptance is concerned, defence of
accused is of planting while respondent-accused was away from the
table for lunch time. She pointed out that, there is variance in the
description of alleged purse from which tainted currency was said to
be seized. She pointed out that according to complainant, who
actually allegedly gave bribe, colour of the purse was said to be of
cream colour, but seizure is of black purse. Thus, it is her submission,
that even if there are traces of anthracene powder, possibility of
thrusting or planting to implicate accused cannot be ruled out. She
pointed out that, even tainted currency was in the purse which was
kept in a office cupboard and the currency was not in her hand or
person. Therefore, for all above reasons, she justifies the order of
acquittal and prays to refuse leave.
7. Heard. Perused the papers. It is emerging that on receipt of
complaint from one Vishal Mirikar, ACB authorities planned trap and
ALS-133-2025
further allegedly executed it. For establishing the charges, it is
incumbent upon the prosecution to demonstrate and establish
demand and acceptance. The crucial witnesses on this point are PW1
complainant and PW2 pancha. Initially Investigating Officer decided
to get it verified as to whether there was demand at all or not, and
accordingly he sent complainant as well as pancha to the office of
accused, where, according to PW1-complainant, he had talked with
accused about his work and accused allegedly demanded Rs.1,000/-
which, on negotiations, was brought down to Rs.700/- and on the
pretext of bringing said amount after withdrawing it from ATM, both
witnesses came back. He further deposed that, subsequently when
they approached accused, she was not present at her place. Therefore,
complainant made phone call upon which she reached there. He
deposed that, that time she indicated him to give money and so he
took out the money which she accepted and kept in her purse.
From above testimony in chief itself, as pointed out, it is clear
that this witness has deposed about accused making indications to
give money i.e. by means of gesture. There was no oral demand of
money.
ALS-133-2025
In cross, he answered that accused told him about house tax
and water tax to the tune of Rs.1800/- and 1000/- respectively, and
for recording name of complainant to the house, transfer fees was
Rs.1,000/-. Therefore, as stated above, very aspect of demand of bribe
has come under shadow of doubt.
8. PW2, who was in the company of complainant, deposed that,
he and complainant went to the office of accused where they met her.
Even he stated that accused demanded money by making indications
i.e. by way of gestures. Witness thereafter informed the court that he
does not remember what happened further. Therefore, not finding
him deposing as like PW1, he was declared hostile by learned APP
and was further cross examined. Therefore, there is no corroboration
to the testimony of complainant.
9. During cross of Investigation Officer, suggestions were given
that, whether he verified during investigation as to whether there was
really any work of complainant with accused, and Investigating
Officer has admitted that on 30.05.2013, no work of complainant was
pending with the accused and on such date, property of complainant
was already transferred.
ALS-133-2025
10. Even sanctioning authority has answered that, it is the Ward
Officer who is competent to transfer and not accused. Resultantly,
there is force in the submission that accused being clerk, had no
authority to transfer property in the name of the applicant.
Resultantly, moot question arises is, when accused was not competent
or authorized to transfer, what was the reason or motive for her to
put up demand.
11. It seems that though efforts were done to record conversation,
voice recorded was not played in the trial court and even very
complainant had no opportunity to listen to it.
12. It seems that, tainted currency was found in the purse which
was kept in the cupboard. Learned APP has submitted that there were
anthracene traces to both the hands of accused, however, such
admission has come in the evidence of PW2 after he was declared
hostile. Thereafter, as this witness had shown inability to recollect the
things, he was given panchanama and documents to read while in the
witness box and after reading the same, he deposed accordingly.
Complainant himself has stated that after tainted currency was
carried and he and pancha approached accused, she was not available
at the place. There is defence of planting in absence of accused.
ALS-133-2025
Therefore, mere finding tainted currency in the purse itself is not
sufficient to hold that there was acceptance. Further as pointed out,
according to seizure, purse is black in colour, but according to
complainant, the purse in which accused allegedly kept the tainted
currency was of cream colour, Therefore such variance also renders
prosecution case doubtful.
13. With above quality of evidence, no fault can be found in the
order passed by the trial court. No case being made out for
interference, following order is passed :
ORDER
I. Leave is refused.
II. The application is dismissed.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
