Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Ramesh Kondu Tayde And Anr on 9 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:5501
ALS-5-2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 5 OF 2021
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Kranti Chowk,
Aurangabad ... Applicant
(Orig. Complainant)
Versus
1. Ramesh S/o. Kondu Tayde,
Age : 56 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o. Sadashiv Nagar, N-2,
CIDCO, Aurangabad.
2. Avinash S/o. Yeshwant Bhise,
Age : 59 years, Occu. : Service/Pensioner,
R/o. P.W.D. Quarter, Nijam Bunglow,
Chavni, Aurangabad. ... Respondents
.....
Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for Applicant - State.
Ms. Monica Bagwe h/f. Mr. C. P. Sengaonkar, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 05 FEBRUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 09 FEBRUARY 2026
ORDER :
1. By invoking section 378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prosecution hereby seeks leave to question the judgment and order dated 11.11.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, A.C.B., Aurangabad in Special Case (A.C.B.) No. 07 of 2016 by which present respondents were acquitted from charges under sections 7, 12, 13(1)
(d) r/w section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act.
ALS-5-2021 -2-
2. In short, prosecution was launched against respondents on the premises that, complainant, who had retired from P.W.D. Department, had approached accused no.1 Senior Assistant in P.W.D. Department for processing his file for pay fixation and verification on account of his retirement. It is the accusation of the prosecution that, for doing said duty, through accused no.2 a retired person, demand of Rs.5,000/- was raised. On receipt of above complaint, Anti Corruption Bureau authorities planned trap, engaged panch, gave necessary instructions, carried out verification of demand and thereafter laid trap and apprehended both accused. After investigation, they both were charge sheeted and tried vide above special case, which ended up in acquittal. Hence, instant leave application.
3. Learned APP would point out that prosecution had a very strong case in trial court against both the accused. That, there was initial demand on 22.07.2015 and second demand was again raised on 31.07.2015. On receipt of report to that extent, he would submit that, Anti Corruption Bureau authorities initially took steps of verification of the demand. Conversation between complainant and accused in presence of independent witness, a shadow panch, was recorded and its script was drawn. According to him, only on complete satisfaction of availability of material about demand, further trap was planned and successfully executed. He pointed out ALS-5-2021 -3- that, accused no.2 had acted on behalf of accused no.1 and he had accepted the bribe amount. That, anthracene powder traces were noticed on the hands.
4. He further pointed out that, unfortunately complainant before stepped into witness box had expired. However, according to him, there was evidence of shadow panch, which was useful to the prosecution. There was also evidence of Investigating Officer. Further there were strong circumstances like script of voice recording as well as traces of anthracene powder, and therefore, prosecution indeed had a good case on merits. However, according to him, on account of refusal to accept prosecution evidence as proved, trial ended up in acquittal and there being good case in appeal, he prays for according leave to file appeal.
5. In answer to above, learned counsel for respondents would support the judgment of acquittal and would point out that, here, prosecution had utterly failed to prove the guilt of both the accused. According to her, there was no evidence to show that, there was demand and further acceptance by accused no.1. Therefore, essential ingredients for attracting the charges were patently missing. He would point out that, it had transpired during evidence that firstly, accused no.1 was not authorized to do the alleged work and moreover, the service book of accused was already found to be ALS-5-2021 -4- forwarded to the concerned department for further processing. There is admission to that extent by very Investigating Officer and as such, it is her submission that, the very aspect of motive of putting up demand itself has come under shadow of doubt. She pointed out that, evidence of prosecution is without testimony of very complainant. She also pointed out that, PW2 shadow panch also did not give testimony useful to the prosecution and as such, it is her submission that, prosecution had utterly failed to bring home the charges. She pointed out that, though accused no.2 has been implicated, there is no material suggesting that said accused acted at the behest of accused no.1. She emphatically pointed out that, prosecution has alleged a demand raised by both accused in one and the same crime, which is impossible, and therefore, with such quality of evidence, it is her submission that, aspect of demand and acceptance itself come under shadow of doubt. She lastly pointed out that, whatever witness has stated in the testimony does not find place in the script of conversation. Resultantly, she justifies the order of acquittal and prays to refuse leave for want of merits.
6. Heard. Perused the papers. It appears that on account of retirement of complainant from P.W.D. Department, he had allegedly approached accused no.1 to forward and process his service book for benefits of pension. It is alleged that, accused no.1 put up demand of ALS-5-2021 -5- Rs.5,000/-. Hence the report and further investigation.
7. Prosecution has developed a case that, accused no.1 put up demand of Rs.5,000/- and directed complainant to pay it to accused no.2, who also was an official of P.W.D., but had admittedly retired. From the complaint of complainant, it transpires that, he allegedly approached accused no.1 on 22.07.2015. Admittedly, at that time, accused no.1 was alone. In his complaint, he has narrated that, accused no.1 demanded Rs.5,000/-. Unfortunately, evidence of PW1 complainant was not available to the prosecution. Consequently, sine qua non of demand itself has not been substantiated by prosecution. At the initial of demand, accused no.2 is not in picture. That, the only allegation against accused No. 2, who allegedly was to accept the amount on behalf of accused No. 1, and it arose after an alleged telephonic call between accused No. 2 and accused No.1, when the complainant and the shadow panch had approached him. On query, as to whether there is CDR to substantiate such conversation, learned APP could not answer and rather learned counsel for respondents answer it in negative. Therefore, the crucial link of nexus between accused nos.1 and 2 on the point of demand is missing. As pointed out, demand can't be in chores. Amount is said to be recovered from accused no.2, but as stated above, there is nothing to show that said accused acted at the behest of accused no.1, ALS-5-2021 -6- in fact, he is a retired person, and therefore, it is doubtful that he could be acting at the instance of accused no.1. No other independent witness of the office, at whose instance the alleged incidents took place, has been examined in support of above story of prosecution. Essentials for abetment at the hands of accused no.2 of accused no.1 are also patently missing from prosecution evidence.
8. It is emerging from the record that, though complainant set law into motion, it is reported that, before commencement of trial and before recording his evidence, he allegedly expired and as such prosecution evidence is absent his testimony.
9. Though PW2, who is supposed to be a shadow panch and a crucial witness, is examined by prosecution, record of trial court shows that, this witness left the testimony midway on account of ill health and was already discharged on the health ground by the Predecessor of the court which had passed impugned judgment.
10. As regards to motive is concerned, as pointed out, very Investigating Officer has already admitted that service book of complainant, which was to be processed for pension, was already in possession of inward section. Further again as pointed out that, Investigating Officer has failed to seize the very service book. Therefore, again motive to demand bribe has also come under shadow ALS-5-2021 -7- of doubt.
11. Learned APP would point out that, presumption available under the act ought to have been used by learned trial court, however, the foundational facts are itself not proved, presumption available under the statute cannot be applied.
12. Net result of above discussion is that aspect of very essential like demand are not substantiated. Demand is attributed in chores to both the accused. Shadow panch has not supported prosecution. Essential ingredients for roping in accused no.2 on the charge of abetment are also missing. With such quality of evidence, this court does not find any error on the part of learned trial court in refusing to accept the case of prosecution.
There being no point made out on merits to accord leave, I proceed to pass the following order :-
ORDER
(i) Leave is refused.
(ii) Application for Leave to Appeal by State is rejected.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale