[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah vs Avinash Venunath Solunke And Anr on 12 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:10634
Appeal-527-2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 527 OF 2011
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Dy.S.P. ACB, Jalgaon ... Appellant
Versus
1. Avinash Venunath Solunke,
Age : 45 years,
R/o. Prakashnagar, Plot No.3,
Jalgaon.
2. Pratap Rambhau Chavan,
Age : 46 years,
R/o. Laxminagar, Near H. Kalyani Garden,
Jalgaon. ... Respondents
(Orig. Accused)
.....
Mr. S. G. Sangle, APP for Appellant - State.
Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Ms.Vishakha Bang h/f. Mr.N.S.Ghanekar,Advocate for Respondent No.2.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 10 MARCH 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 12 MARCH 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. State hereby questions the judgment and order dated
10.01.2011 passed by learned Ad Hoc District Judge-1 and Assistant
Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Special Case No.08 of 2007 by which
present respondents stood acquitted from charges under sections 7,
12, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
Appeal-527-2011
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. In short, Anti Corruption Bureau authorities planned
trap on receipt of complaint from PW1, who reported that, he and his
other colleagues, who were working as Sanitary Inspectors in
Municipal Corporation Jalgaon, were called by Chief Auditor and
Accounts Officer to his office on 12.07.2004. He informed them that,
wrongly instead of pay scale of Rs.700/-, they have been given pay
scale of Rs.1,200/-, and as such, recovery would follow. According to
him, through accused no.2 message was received that for avoiding
above action of recovery, amount of Rs.10,000/- was demanded from
each of the Sanitary Inspector. On negotiations, amount was brought
down to Rs.5,000/- per head. Complainant therefore approached Anti
Corruption Bureau Office and lodged complaint Exh.11 on the basis of
which, Anti Corruption Bureau authorities arranged panchas and
executed the plan of trap. Both accused were charge sheeted and
finally tried by above Court, who was pleased to acquit the accused.
Hence, the instant appeal.
Submissions on Behalf of State :
3. Learned APP would point out that, prosecution had
established the charges beyond reasonable doubt. That, there was
demand through accused no.2. That, on negotiations, amount was
Appeal-527-2011
brought down to Rs.5,000/-. On receipt of complaint, Anti Corruption
Bureau authorities planned trap, and successfully executed it. That,
accused had called complainant to his residence, and there, in
presence of shadow panch, there was a demand. That, there was
testimony of complainant as well as shadow panch. Both these
witnesses are consistent on the point of demand. That, on behalf of
accused no.1, accused no.2 had accepted the bribe. Therefore,
essential ingredients for attracting the offence were very much
available, and as such, it is his submission that, the prosecution had
proved the charges of demand as well as acceptance.
4. He next submitted that, Sanctioning Authorities of both
accused were examined by the prosecution, and after due application
of mind, said authorities had accorded sanction. Thus, according to
him, case of prosecution was full-proof, but only on account of
incorrect appreciation of evidence at the hands of learned trial Court,
case resulted in acquittal, and for above reasons, he urges to allow
the appeal.
Submission on Behalf of Respondents - Accused :
5. In answer to above, the learned counsel for each of the
accused would submit that the prosecution had miserably failed to
bring home the charges. That, there was no convincing evidence
Appeal-527-2011
about demand as well as acceptance. That, prosecution witnesses are
not consistent. If there was nothing to connect accused no.2 with
accused no.1, recovery of currency is from the cot, meaning thereby
there was no acceptance also. That, witnesses in cross have admitted
that, there was no demand by accused no.1. Therefore, when
essentials of demand and acceptance were not proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, case of prosecution had
collapsed, and therefore, according to learned counsel, learned trial
Court committed no error whatsoever in acquitting the accused.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT
6. Re-appreciated and re-analyzed the evidence. There is no
serious challenge that both, the accused as well as complainant, were
in the service of Jalgaon Municipal Corporation. There is also no
challenge or dispute that accused persons are public servants.
7. On re-analyzing the evidence of PW1 complainant at
Exh.10, it is emerging that, on 12.07.2004, accused no.1 had
allegedly called meeting of all Sanatory Inspectors including
complainant. According to him, they all were told that wrongly pay
scale of Rs.1,200/- were given to them instead of Rs.700/-, and there
would be recovery from them. According to him, on next day i.e. on
13.07.2004, accused no.2, Health Superintendent, came to the office
Appeal-527-2011
and told that, the matter could be settled, however, an amount had to
be paid for it. He accordingly told that, each of them would have to
pay Rs.10,000/-. Complainant claims that, he told accused no.2 that
he would consult others. On 14.07.2004, accused took the
complainant to accused no.1 and according to him, accused no.1 said
that he had already stated to accused no.2 Chavan and whatever he
told is correct and to pay Rs.10,000/- per head. After negotiations,
amount was brought down to Rs.5,000/- per head. On 03.08.2004,
accused no.2 again approached and questioned about the amount.
Upon which, he was informed that only complainant, one Badgujar
and Nemade have agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- and accordingly accused
no.2 told them to visit accused no.1 on the next day. However, on
04.08.2004, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau authorities and
lodged complaint Exh.11.
Regarding the events of trap, he has deposed in
paragraph 11 that he himself, panchas and all the members of
raiding party proceeded towards the office of Municipal Corporation
and thereafter, he and pancha went to the office of accused on 10 th
floor, but accused no.1 was not present, and therefore, he and panch
came back and duly informed about it to the Investigating Officer,
who, according to this witness, instructed him to make inquiry with
accused no.1 regarding his whereabouts. However, this witness
Appeal-527-2011
states that, he made inquiry on mobile with accused no.2, who asked
him to come to residential quarter of accused no.1 and accordingly he
narrated the events at the residence of accused in paragraph 13.
Here, he states that, accused no.2 asked whether amount is brought
and when he informed about Rs.10,000/- being brought, accused no.1
told to give accused no.2, who accepted it and kept it beneath a book
over a cot, and thereafter, signal was relayed.
However, while under cross, in paragraph 17, this witness
has admitted that, during course of entire transaction, accused no.1
was never made any demand. He also admitted that, he was under
impression that accused no.1 had demanded money as per say of
other person; He admitted that, accused no.1 had no authority to
recover amount from them. He also admitted that, Standing
Committee is authorized to recover the amount. In paragraph 18 and
19, this witness has admitted contents of Exh.13 and 14 and he
admitted that, on going through the same, he realized that, it was not
the contention of accused no.1 to recover Rs.3,00,000/-. He further
admitted in paragraph 23 that, when the amount was given, the
accused no.1 was not present in the said room.
While under cross at the hands of accused no.2,
complainant has admitted that, accused no.2 was not responsible for
Appeal-527-2011
fixing their pay, and accused no.2 was not working under the control
of accused no.1. He also admitted in paragraph 28 of the cross that,
accused no.1 did not tell him to give amount to accused no.2.
8. PW2 Ashok Nemade is the colleague of complainant and
he in his evidence at Exh.21, stated that, he and complainant were
served notice by accused no.1 and accordingly were called in the
office on 12.07.2004. According to him, at that time, accused no.1
told that the promotions were illegal and that recovery of excess
salary would be made. According to him, after 4 to 5 days,
complainant came to them and informed that in case the matter is to
be settled, then they have to pay amount to Salunke (accused no.1).
According to him, thereafter complainant told that accused no.2 had
met him and making inquiry about the amount of accused no.1
Salunke. According to him, he, Badgujar and PW1 collected
Rs.10,000/- to pay to accused no.1 and they themselves sent message
to accused no.1 through accused no.2. On 04.08.2004, he, Badgujar
and complainant came together and to approach Anti Corruption
Bureau. After which, he and complainant accordingly went to Anti
Corruption Bureau and gave complaint.
While under cross at the hands of accused no.1, he
admitted that, during the entire transaction, there were no personal
Appeal-527-2011
talks with accused no.1 as well as accused no.2 and even there were
no talks in his presence between Badgujar as well as complainant and
accused person. He admitted that he has no personal knowledge
whether PW1 was telling truth or lie. He admitted that, till date, there
was no recovery made from him.
While under cross at the hands of learned counsel for
accused no.2, he admitted that, accused no.2 was also included in 13
persons, who were called by accused no.1 for the meeting in the office
of accused no.1.
9. PW3 Pramod is the shadow panch, who is examined at
Exh.26. In initial he stated about visiting ACB office, being introduced
to complainant, going through his complaint and signing over it, and
instructions issued by ACB Officer and drawing of pre-trap
panchanama (Exh.27). In paragraph 8 of his examination-in- chief,
he stated that, he and the complainant approached Municipal
Corporation, and thereafter, they walked towards office of accused
no.1., however accused no.1 was not present; therefore, they came
back and duly informed it to the Investigating Officer, who suggested
having a telephonic talk with accused no.2. In paragraph 9 and 10,
he narrated about the events took place at the residence of accused,
wherein he stated that, there were formal talks between
Appeal-527-2011
complainant, accused no.1 and accused no.2. That accused no.2
allegedly told accused no.1 that, they have work and they to do it,
upon which, accused no.1 agreed by saying OK, and thereafter, while
going again accused no.2 said complainant to give away, after which
complainant handed over currency to accused no.2, who kept it on
the the cot, and thereafter, complainant went out and relayed signal.
While under cross, he also admitted that, accused no.1
were never personally raised demand, and that, amount was kept by
accused no.2 on the cot. In paragraph 18, he stated that his
statement was not recorded by police.
ANALYSIS
10. Therefore, on complete re-appreciation of evidence of
complainant, PW2 Ashok as well as PW3 shadow panch, it is clearly
emerging that, there is no demand by accused no.1. complainant
himself has admitted that, he was merely under impression that
accused was asked him bribe for himself. He has admitted that,
accused persons have no authority to initiate recovery and it was
Standing Committee, which never took action. PW1 complainant and
PW2 Ashok Nemade though together, are not consistent on the point
of Investigating Officer asking them to make call when accused no.1
was not present in the office. In cross examination, they both have
Appeal-527-2011
candidly admitted that there was no demand by accused no.1 at any
point of time. PW2 Ashok Nemade has admitted that, there was no
personal conversation between him and accused on the point of
demand. Therefore, story of prosecution on the point of initial
demand is under shadow of doubt. It is fairly settled position of law
that, when initial demand itself has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, the story of the prosecution collapses.
11. Here, as regard to acceptance is concerned, admittedly, it
is not the accused no.1, but alleged to be at the instance of accused
no.2, who had also kept the currency on the cot, which was never
shown to be accepted by accused no.1. Witnesses admitting that
accused no.2 was also one amongst them against whom action of
recovery was to be initiated. Witness PW2 is admitting that he does
not know whether whatever they learnt from the complainant about
demand was true or false. Therefore, with such quality of evidence,
case of prosecution is rendered doubtful.
12. Though there is sanction to prosecute, when the
essentials like demand and acceptance are not proved beyond
reasonable doubt, learned trial Court committed no error whatsoever
in acquitting the accused. There is no perversity, illegality or failure
to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. There being no
Appeal-527-2011
merits in the appeal, hence, I proceed to pass the following order : -
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
