[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The State Ofl Maharashtra Th Acb A.Nagar vs Navnath Dipa Vetal on 11 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:10344
CriAppeal-526-2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 526 OF 2011
The State of Maharashtra,
through ACB, Ahmednagar. ... Appellant-State
Versus
Navnath Dipa Vetal
Age 48 years, R/o Block No. 17,
Room No. 246, Police Headquarter,
Ahmednagar. ... Respondent
[Orig. Accused]
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1151 OF 2024
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 526 OF 2011
Navnath Deepa Vetal
Age 65 Years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. 1707, Shriram Colony,
Alamgir Road, Bhingar,
Ahmednagar,
Taluka and District Ahmednagar. ... Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
.....
Mrs. Saie Swapnil Joshi, APP for the Appellant-State in Criminal
Appeal No. 526 of 2011 and Respondent in Criminal Application No.
1151 of 2024.
Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for the Respondent in Criminal Appeal
No. 526 of 2011 and Applicant in Criminal Application No. 1151 of
2024.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 09.03.2026
Pronounced on : 11.03.2026
CriAppeal-526-2011
-2-
JUDGMENT :
1. Appellant-State hereby takes exception to the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 24.12.2010 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Special Case No. 4 of 2006 acquitting
present respondent from charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act].
2. In brief, prosecution was launched against present respondent
on the premise that, when complainant approached accused, a
constable posted at District Special Branch, Ahmednagar, for issuance
of passport by tendering application, accused allegedly demanded
Rs.200/- bribe. An amount of Rs.100/- was paid upfront and before
payment of remaining amount, complainant approached ACB and
gave complaint Exhibit 12 on the basis of which ACB authorities
planned and executed trap by engaging pancha. After alleged
successful trap, accused was apprehended, booked for above
provisions of the PC Act and finally tried by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, who by impugned order acquitted the accused.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, Sate has come up in appeal.
CriAppeal-526-2011
3. Learned APP would point out that prosecution has established
its case beyond reasonable doubt. That, as many as four witnesses
were examined by prosecution. That, evidence of PW1 and PW2 on
the point of demand as well as acceptance has remained unshaken
and undisturbed. Thus, according to her, both sine qua non for
bringing home the charge were very much available in the evidence
and were also duly proved.
4. Learned APP however expressed concerned on the grounds of
acquittal i.e., firstly, on the ground of demand not proved and
secondly, non application of mind by the sanctioning authority.
Elaborating on this, she would take this court through the evidence of
PW1 complainant as well as PW2 shadow pancha and also the
panchanama, and would submit that throughout and consistently it
has come that there was demand of bribe of Rs.100/- in presence of
independent witness i.e. shadow pancha. That, there was
corroboration to the testimony of complainant, however, according to
her, learned trial court has entertained doubt about the bonafides of
complainant and in the backdrop of some previous crime registered
against father of complainant, entire story of prosecution is doubted
on the point of motive for putting up demand. She pointed out that,
learned trial court has held that there was no work pending, however,
CriAppeal-526-2011
evidence of complainant and shadow pancha on demand and
acceptance has not been comprehended and appreciated. She pointed
out that, observations of trial court about inability of complainant to
see due to his weak eye-sight are out of place in the evidence on
record.
5. As regards to sanction is concerned, she pointed out that, said
authority had verified and studied all investigation papers received by
him and thereafter had accorded sanction. On the point of sanction,
she seeks reliance on the judgment of this Court in the Case of
Dashrath v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2025 INSC 654 and
criticizes the trial court's judgment on the point of sanction, and
ultimately prayed to interfere by allowing the appeal.
6. Learned counsel for respondent-original accused would defend
and justify the order of acquittal. According to him, here, there was
no motive to put up demand by way of bribe. According to him
whatever work complainant had, was already done and even
sanctioning authority and Investigating Officer have admitted to that
extent. Thus, according to him, when there was no work pending on
the day of trap, there was no question of demand of bribe. He would
also take this Court through the evidence of PW1 and PW2 i.e.
CriAppeal-526-2011
complainant and shadow pancha, and would submit that witnesses
are not consistent. That, there is no corroboration to the evidence of
complainant who is interested witness and is looked upon as an
accomplice. That, they are inconsistent on the actual events which
ensued in the office of accused. That, demand itself was not proved
and on this count he took the court through the evidence of PW1 and
PW2 and would point out that, from the same it is clear that there
was no demand and allegations to that extent are doubtful.
7. As regards to acceptance is concerned, it is his submission that
defence of accused since inception has been of false implication by
planting currency by taking disadvantage of weak eye-sight of
accused. That, it has come in the evidence of both, complainant as
well as shadow pancha that, it is complainant who had handled the
receipt book as accused had weak eye-sight. That, said receipt book
was admittedly kept in the drawer. Even tainted currency was
recovered from the drawer by pancha No.2 and therefore, there being
possibility of planting, advantage of the same has been extended to
the accused by the trial court for having probabilized the defence.
8. As regards to sanction is concerned, he would take this court
through the chief as well as cross of PW4 sanctioning authority and
CriAppeal-526-2011
would point out that this witness has admitted that on relevant day,
file of complainant was already processed and was sent for further
processing to Passport office at Pune with copy to the SP Office.
Therefore, on the day of trap, there was no work pending with
accused so as to attribute motive of demand. That, sanctioning
authority has not considered such aspect before according sanction
and therefore, he justifies findings of trial court on this count.
9. Lastly he submitted that, with such quality of evidence, the
view taken by the trial court cannot be said to be erroneous so as to
interfere in appeal. He also pointed out that law is settled that when
two views are possible, the one favouring the accused has to be
adopted, more particularly when on complete appreciation of
evidence, trial court itself has recorded acquittal. For above reasons,
he urges to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.
10. This being an appeal, brief account of the evidence before trial
court is required to be thrown light upon. Prosecution has examined
in all four witnesses to establish its case. The status and role of these
witnesses and the sum and substance of their evidence can be
summarized as under :
CriAppeal-526-2011
11. PW1 complainant is examined at Exhibit 12 wherein he has
stated that he was a student of B.Com 3rd year and as he wanted to
accompany his father's friend namely Gani Bhai to Dubai, he applied
and on 21.12.2005 when he allegedly went with Demand Draft and
bonafide certificate, it is his testimony that, accused demanded
Rs.200/- from him and on being asked, "for what", accused allegedly
said that same would be required to be paid to avoid coming again
and again. When complainant expressed his inability to pay so much
amount, accused allegedly asked him to pay Rs.100/- that day and to
pay remaining Rs.100/- later on and to collect the receipt.
Accordingly, he paid Rs.100/-. As complainant was not willing to pay
bribe, he approached ACB and lodged complaint Exhibit 12. He
testified about independent panchas being called and being
introduced to him, he narrating his grievance and complaint to them
and thereafter one of the pancha being instructed to accompany him.
In para 4, he narrated the events. According to him, while he and
pancha approached accused, and on being asked about his passport
file, accused started searching it and thereafter accused handed him
over the receipt book and asked him to find his receipt for himself.
Thereafter, receipt was pointed out, upon which accused allegedly
detached it from the receipt-book. Thereafter, according to
complainant, he told accused that he is going, upon which accused
CriAppeal-526-2011
allegedly told him to go after two to three days. Thereupon he again
allegedly asked accused as to where he should go, upon which
accused told him to go to Kotwali Police Station. Thereafter, there
was said to be demand of Rs 100/- which was given by complainant
and accepted by accused who kept it in the drawer and thereafter
complainant came out and relayed signal.
Cross examination of this Witness commences from para 5
onward. In initial cross, he admitted about receipt of passport but he
did not go to Dubai. He answered that he did not inform Gani Bhai
about accused demanding him bribe of Rs.200/. He denied filing case
at the instance of Gani Bhai. However, he admitted that on
23.11.2005, raid was effected on the gambling house which was in
his father's name. He denied that Gani Bhai, his father and he himself
had thereafter decided to file cases against police officials. He again
admitted that he did not go abroad till date. Rest is all denial.
In para 9 he has answered that, when he approached accused,
accused had asked him by saying, 'bola kay?', on which he had told
him that he had applied for getting passport and he had come to
collect receipt, upon which accused had handed over receipt book and
asked him to find out his own receipt, which he searched. However,
CriAppeal-526-2011
he denied further suggestions that he was asked to take the receipt-
book from the drawer and further keep it back there in the drawer.
He is unable to state where receipt book was kept when raiding party
arrived. He admitted that he did not see the drawer. Again, rest is all
denial.
12. PW2 shadow pancha, at Exhibit 16, in initial chief stated that,
while working in Agricultural Department, he and other pancha were
asked to attend ACB Office, and accordingly when they visited, they
were introduced to complaint and they heard his story about applying
for passport and public servant demanding Rs.200/-, and Rs.100/-
being paid in advance. That, he went through the complaint filed by
the complainant and then caused signature over it. In para 2 he
narrated the events of procedure undertaken by ACB office for
application of anthracene powder to the currency and he and
complainant being given necessary instructions and he was asked to
be watchful of the conversation between complainant and accused
and thereafter he and complainant visiting the office of accused.
According to him, around 2.00 p.m. after entering the office,
complainant initially sought permission of the accused to come inside
the office and then complainant told that he had applied for passport
and he is in need of receipt. According to him, accused said 'OK' and
CriAppeal-526-2011
as his eye-sight was weak, he handed over receipt book to
complainant and to trace out his receipt which was accordingly done
by complainant and thereafter accused had torn the receipt, handed it
to complainant, who kept it in the pocket and them complainant
again informed accused that he is going, upon which accused inquired
whether amount is brought and to give it. Complainant removed
Rs.100/- and kept it in front of accused who accepted it and kept it in
the right side drawer and then, when complainant asked him whether
there is any problem, he was told by accused that inquiry would be
conducted by Kotwali Police Station. Thereafter, when complainant
left, this witness also stood up and after going out of the office,
complainant relayed the signal followed by arrival of raiding party
and apprehension of accused.
In cross, he admitted that his statement was not recorded on
23rd and rather it was recorded on 25 th. He was asked by defence
counsel whether Abdul Gani Shaikh was present there, and this
witness initially answered 'yes', but them corrected himself and said
'no'. He further answered that another person was with Bhalkar who
was middle aged. Thereafter, to every suggestion, this witness has
virtually expressed his inability to remember. He also admitted that
when they initially went to the office of accused, he was busy in his
CriAppeal-526-2011
official work and when they entered, it was asked by accused about
the nature of work with him. He admitted that, when complainant
inquired about passport receipt, accused said that he will see. He
admitted that in the panchanama, location of receipt book is not
mentioned. He expressed his inability to remember whether after
issuing receipt accused asked complainant to keep the receipt book in
the drawer. He admitted that when raiding party came and asked
about the whereabouts of money, he told that it was in the drawer.
Thereafter he is unable to state whether accused was asked to remove
the currency from the drawer.
13. PW3 in the Investigating Officer and in his chief he stated all
the events since receipt of complaint from PW1 till apprehension of
accused and he being chargesheeted.
While under cross, he admitted that work of passport was with
office of SP, District Special Branch. He admitted that, application of
complainant dated 22.12.2005 Exhibit 27 was already sent to the
Passport Office, Pune as per communication Exhibit 29 and on the
same day it was also sent to the concerned police station for
verification. He identified communication Exhibits 34 and 35 which
are communications received from DIG, ACB Office not to allow
CriAppeal-526-2011
interference of Shaikh Abdul Gani Shakkarbhai in official work. He
admitted that, in the instant case, Abdul Gani Shaikh had instigated
complainant to submit application for passport, however rest all
suggestions are denied by him.
14. PW4 is the sanctioning authority.
15. Learned APP would submit that, findings and observations of
trial court are beyond evidence on record. Whereas, learned counsel
for accused would specifically point out that, complainant had no
work, but only because action was initiated against Shaikh Gani, i.e.
friend of complainant's father, complainant was induced to cook story
of demand of bribe for passport. That, in fact complainant never
intended to travel abroad. It is his specific case that, here, there was
no motive as, including complainant, Investigating Officer has
admitted that his work was already done and nothing was left with
accused to prompt him to put up demand of bribe.
16. On above lines, if evidence of prosecution is appreciated, it
does emerge that complainant has himself admitted that he had
already received passport, and that he never traveled abroad till date.
Investigating Officer has also admitted that work of passport was with
CriAppeal-526-2011
the office of SP. That, application dated 22.12.2005 tendered by
accused Exhibit 27 was already sent to passport office, Pune, and
other copy to police station for processing. Even sanctioning authority
has answered that, he was not informed before issuing draft sanction
dated 23rd that accused had already sent the file to the concerned
police station. This shows that, work for which there was said to be
demand of bribe, was already over. If this is so, indeed a doubt arises
as to what was the motive available with accused to demand and even
for complainant to pay bribe. Consequently, here, on the date of
alleged trap, work of complainant was already beyond the means and
resources of accused.
17. Here, specific defence put forth is that of planting money. On
these lines if evidence is put to scrutiny, it is emerging that both,
complainant and shadow pancha, are cross examined wherein they
have admitted that accused handed over receipt book to complainant
to find his receipt himself as he had vision problem. Shadow pancha
has candidly admitted that accused was not in position to see and
therefore he asked complainant to trace his receipt and thereafter
when the receipt was pointed out, it was allegedly detached and
handed over to complainant and thereafter, it is alleged that, tainted
currency was accepted and kept by accused in the drawer.
CriAppeal-526-2011
Complainant has admitted that currency was kept in the drawer.
Shadow pancha is unable to remember such chronology which took
place after alleged conversation between complainant and accused.
Resultantly, as there is no denial by shadow pancha to the suggestions
put by learned counsel for defence, there is no corroboration to the
evidence of complainant on the point of acceptance. This shadow
pancha is unable to state whether currency and receipt book were
taken out from the drawer or not.
18. The second pancha, who was said to have accompanied the
raiding party and was the witness to the removal of tainted currency
from the drawer, is not examined. In the light of both, complainant
and shadow pancha, admitting vision problem of accused, and when
there is evidence suggesting currency being kept and recovered from
drawer, then possibility of thrusting or planting cannot be ruled out.
It is cardinal principle of law that prosecution has to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt. The moment doubt creeps in and when it is
reasonable, its benefit goes to accused. This is precisely what has
happened here and therefore, there being doubt about motive, aspect
of demand as well as acceptance has come under shadow of doubt.
CriAppeal-526-2011
19. The second point which went against prosecution in trial court
is the sanction. Learned trial court has held sanction to be invalid on
the ground of non application of mind and said findings are criticized
by the prosecution before this Court. Resultantly, evidence of
sanctioning authority is required to be revisited.
20. PW4 sanctioning authority is examined at Exhibit 36 and he has
deposed that, he had received investigation papers and draft sanction
from ACB, Ahmednagar. According to him, he perused the report
along with entire investigation papers, understood the same, applied
his mind and came to the conclusion that there is evidence to
prosecute the accused and thereafter he perused the draft, thought it
necessary to make some corrections in one para of draft sanction
order and accordingly, he accorded sanction Exhibit 37.
While under cross, he admitted that duty of accused was only
to sell application for Rs.20/-, examine the documents and demand
draft and send it to police station in whose jurisdiction accused
resided and other copy to be send to Passport Office at Pune. He
admitted in cross that he was informed that accused demanded
Rs.100 to send the file for further processing, but according to him, it
was not informed to him whether before issuing draft sanction dated
CriAppeal-526-2011
23rd, on 22nd itself accused had sent file to concerned police station.
He admitted that copy Exhibit 27 was inclusive of documents which
were sent to him and he candidly admitted that it did appear to him
that file was already sent to Passport Office, Pune and on same day,
copy was also sent to Kotwali police station.
21. From above testimony of sanctioning authority, as pointed out,
it is emerging that this authority has also received documents
comprising of processed papers which were already dispatched to
both, Passport Office at Pune as well as concerned police station. If
this was admitted, then as pointed out, on the day of main trap dated
23rd December 2005, there was no work with accused and rather it
was already processed and forwarded to the concerned office. If this
was the situation, then, as rightly held by the trial court, this
authority ought to have refused to accord sanction by noting that
there was no motive or work of complainant to offer bribe or for
accused to accept the same. Therefore, there are reason to hold that
there is no complete application of mind to the entire documents
received by this sanctioning authority.
22. To sum up, here, there was no motive or work pending with
accused so as to demand bribe. There is no evidence about initial
CriAppeal-526-2011
demand and upfront payment of Rs100/-. Defence case is of thrusting
and accused to be having vision problem i.e. weak eye-sight and both,
complainant and shadow pancha, are admitting complainant doing
the work of tracing his receipt form the receipt book handed over to
him by accused because accused could not see properly. Complainant
has admitted in cross that amount was kept in drawer. Therefore,
possibility of thrusting cannot be ruled out. As stated above, while
according sanction, there is no study of entire documents and had it
been done so, conclusion of sanctioning authority would have been
otherwise.
23. For above reasons, and also bearing in mind the principles
while dealing with appeal against acquittal, and also taking into
account that this Court is precluded from taking distinct view than the
one taken by trial court, appeal fails. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
I. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
II. Pending Criminal Application also stands disposed off.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
