[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Vijaykumar Manikrao Deshmukh on 12 March, 2026
{1} ALS 106 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 106 OF 2024
The State of Maharashtra
Through : Police Inspector,
Kranti Chowk Police Station,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad. ....Applicant
Versus
Vijaykumar Manikrao Deshmukh
Age : 57 years, Occu.: Service (Clerk),
R/o. Kesapuri Vasahat, House No.
CL-10, 79/5, Shivaji Nagar, CIDCO,
Aurangabad. .....Respondent
.....
APP for Appellant : Mr.N.R.Dayma
Advocate for Respondent: Mr.Ajinkya Joshi h/f. Mr. Sharad V., Natu
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 11 MARCH, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 12 MARCH, 2026
ORDER :
1. This is an application seeking leave to file appeal on behalf of
State i.e. on account of acquittal of present respondent by Special
Judge, (PC Act) (Court No.6), Aurangabad in Special Case No.18 of
2016 vide its judgment and order dated 28-08-2023.
{2} ALS 106 OF 2024
2. Learned APP pointed out that, above special case is in
consequence to crime registered on complaint received from one
Amol Prabhakar Mundhe, an Assistant Engineer (Grade-II) whereby
he reported that accused, Head Clerk in the Divisional Office of
Majalgaon Project Division, Majalgaon, demanded bribe of
Rs.5,000/- for clearing medical bill pertaining to father of
complainant and for even releasing monthly salary of August, 2015.
Learned APP submitted that, prompt complaint was received which
was followed by arrangement of panchas, giving necessary
instructions to complainant and panchas. That, thereafter, initially
demand verification was got done by recording conversation in voice
recorder. That, on getting satisfied, the Investigating Officer took
further steps of planning trap and even getting it successful.
According to learned APP, there was demand followed by acceptance.
That, even sanction was obtained and the same was substantiated by
examining Sanctioning Authority, but according to learned APP, trial
ended up in acquittal on two grounds i.e. non-application of mind
while according sanction and holding that there was no work at all
with accused to attribute motive of bribe to him. That, such
appreciation is incorrect and contrary to law and evidence available
on record. That, prosecution has a good case on merits. Learned
{3} ALS 106 OF 2024
APP sought reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed
in the case of Dashrath v. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal
Appeal arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.13997 of 2024, on the point of
sanction, more particularly, paragraph 11 and 13 and prays for grant
of leave.
3. In answer to above, learned counsel for respondent would
justify the acquittal by pointing out that, here, very demand has not
been cogently proved by prosecution. He pointed out that, both
witnesses i.e. complainant and shadow pancha are speaking about
accused making some gestures and there was no oral or verbal
demand. That, even it has come in evidence and even admitted by
prosecution witnesses like Sanctioning Authority that said work was
not with accused so as to attribute motive to raise demand of bribe.
For above reasons, he justifies the order of acquittal.
4. After considering above submissions and on going through
papers including impugned order, it is emerging that one Amol
Prabhakar Mundhe, an Assistant Engineer approached ACB on
25-06-2015 with a complaint that he had approached accused for
clearing medical bill of treatment of his father and also on account of
{4} ALS 106 OF 2024
non-receipt of salary for the month of August 2015. In this regard,
when accused, a Head Clerk of the Divisional Office, allegedly told
him that, office has received copy of sanction order and he would
accordingly raise funds by issuing requisition letter and do the
needful, but according to complainant, he was informed that
Rs.5,000/- was required for the same. Therefore, he approached
ACB with above complaint, which was followed by arrangement of
panchas, giving necessary instructions, and initially getting
verification of demand got done through voice recorder. Thereafter,
shadow pancha and complainant were made to visit accused.
As regards to demand is concerned, as usual, evidence of
complainant is crucial and there has to be corresponding
corroboration from another crucial witness like shadow pancha.
However, it is emerging from the evidence of complainant and
shadow pancha that demand was said to be made by gestures. Thus,
there is no oral or verbal demand of Rs.5,000/-. What gestures were
made and in what form is not stated by both these witnesses.
Further as pointed out by learned counsel for accused, complainant
in his statement during Departmental enquiry has not uttered about
demand made by accused. Therefore, the aspect of very demand
comes under shadow of doubt. In umpteen judgments, the Hon'ble
{5} ALS 106 OF 2024
Apex court has held that proof of demanding bribe is must and mere
recovery of tainted currency is insufficient.
5. Further as pointed out, there seems to be communication dated
06-10-2015 at exh.18, which is issued by Executive Engineer and said
commutation shows that medical bill of father of complainant was
sanctioned on 06-10-2015. However, trap is shown to be laid on
24-09-2015. Hence, there is doubt whether prior to the sanction
itself, accused would have assured getting the work done and putting
up demand for the same. Further, Investigating Officer seems to have
admitted that accused was neither authority competent to accord
sanction to medical bill or raise funds from consolidated funds.
Further PW4 Rokde admitted in cross-examination that order passed
by Aurangabad office could not be forwarded for further action
unless it is registered with Inward section of Majalgaon Division.
Resultantly, there was no work with accused on the date of alleged
demand. Therefore, even motive to put up demand of bribe is not
free from doubt.
6. Acquittal is shown to be granted for want of due application of
{6} ALS 106 OF 2024
mind while according sanction. This witness PW1 Nagendra
Vasantrao Shinde is examined at exh.15 and he deposed about
receiving papers, going through the same and noticing that some
medial bills of treatment of complainant were pending payment and
from conversation of accused and complainant, it revealed that there
was settlement of Rs.5,000/- for clearing the bill. But while under
cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he did not refer to
those documents in his sanction order. He also seems to have
admitted that on 06-10-2015, Executive Engineer sanctioned the
medical bill of father of complainant and further admitted that
alongwith salary of complainant, salary of other three officials was
also withheld by the Executive Engineer. When documents revealed
that medical bill of father of complainant was not sanctioned on the
date of trap i.e. 24-09-2015, there was no question of accused
putting up demand for clearing the bill. Had the Sanctioning
Authority verified these documents and compared with investigation
papers, probably above aspects would have come to his notice and
probably sanction would not have been granted.
7. To sum up, here, at the threshold sine qua non of demand is
not proved as prosecution witnesses speak about demand being
{7} ALS 106 OF 2024
raised by way of gestures from which no specific meaning could be
drawn. Witnesses are not speaking about exact nature of gestures
made by hand. Therefore, when demand itself is not proved, even if
there is recovery, it is of no significance. Even evidence on record
creates doubt about competence of accused to clear or sanction the
medial bills and salary of accused.
8. Learned APP has placed on record above referred judgment in
the case of Dashrath (supra) and on going through paragraph 11 and
13, it is emerging that general proposition has been laid that there is
no legal impediment to prosecute public servant for want of sanction.
As regards to observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 13 is
concerned, it pertains to omissions, errors and irregularity while
granting sanction. Here, it is not so. Here, competent authority has
not got itself satisfied whether it was a case for according sanction as
firstly, he himself and the Investigating Officer having admitted that
accused was not competent to either sanction medical bills or release
salary of accused. Therefore, said ruling is of no avail to the
prosecution.
{8} ALS 106 OF 2024
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that the application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, following
order is passed :
ORDER
Application is rejected.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
