In Als/9/2024 v. Madhav Pandurang Ogale Age: 52 Years, Occu.: Service

2025:BHC-AUG:25017 {1} ALS 09 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD 916 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 9 OF 2024WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3280 OF 2025 IN ALS/9/2024 The State of MaharashtraThrough : Taluka Jalna Police Station, Dist.Jalna. ….ApplicantVersus Madhav Pandurang OgaleAge: 52 years, Occu.: Service,R/o. : Income Tax Colony,Jalna, Dist.Jalna.…..Respondent (Original Accused) ….. APP for Applicant : Mr.V.S.Badakh Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Abhay Rajaram Rathod ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 10 SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 18 SEPTEMBER, 2025 ORDER : 1.Present leave to file appeal is preferred by the applicant Stateon account of judgment and order passed by learned Judge, SpecialCourt and the Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Jalna, inSpecial Case No.263 of 2021, acquitting present respondent forcharge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2.According to the learned APP, accused was working in T.I.L.R.Office as a Surveyor. Complainant PW1 Shankarlal Ratanlal Pandure {2} ALS 09 OF 2024 had approached him for carrying out correction with regard toproperty and for doing the lawful duty, it is alleged that accuseddemanded Rs.5,000/- bribe, but finally on negotiation, brought itdown to Rs.2,000/-. Learned counsel pointed out that, asComplainant was not willing to pay bribe, he approached ACBauthorities, who arranged and planned trap by engaging shadowpanch, independent witness. That, trap was successful as there wasdemand as well as acceptance. On obtaining sanction, accused wastried and according to learned APP, there was overwhelming evidencecoupled with consistent testimonies of PW complainant and PW2shadow pancha on demand and acceptance, however, the learnedtrial Court has failed to consider and appreciate the same. That, alllegal requirements for attracting charge under Section 7 of thePrevention of Corruption Act were available. That, learned trialCourt did not record any finding on the point of acceptance. Merelyholding sanction to be invalid and noting some minor inconsistenciesin the evidence of PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha, thereis acquittal from serious charge. According to learned APP, State hasa good case on merits in appeal and hence, he seeks leave to fileappeal. {3} ALS 09 OF 2024that prosecution has miserably failed to demonstrate and establishvery essentials like demand and acceptance. He pointed out thatPW2 shadow pancha, who is an independent and star witness, hasnot lend support to testimony of PW1 complainant. That, demandand acceptance is not cogently proved. That, the amount demandedwas towards measurement fees and not illegal gratification asclaimed by PW1 complainant. That, even sanction was invalid beinggranted by incompetent person. Thus, learned counsel supports thefindings and conclusion reached at by learned trial Judge and urgesto reject the application for want of merits. 4.Heard. Perused the papers. It seems that present respondentfaced trial for aforesaid offence. Substance of the prosecution case intrial Court was that the PW1 Complainant visited City Survey OfficeJalna on 18-12-2020 for getting correction done in PR Card. Heclaims that present respondent, who works as Surveyor, demandedRs.5,000/-, which subsequently reduced to Rs.2,000/- and as PW1complainant was not willing to pay, he lodged report with AntiCorruption Bureau (ACB) authorities. Anti Corruption Bureauauthorities summoned and engaged PW2 Devlal Karangle to act aspancha and to accompany complainant at the time of demandverification as well as at the time of trap. Accordingly, PW1 {4} ALS 09 OF 2024 4.Heard. Perused the papers. It seems that present respondentfaced trial for aforesaid offence. Substance of the prosecution case intrial Court was that the PW1 Complainant visited City Survey OfficeJalna on 18-12-2020 for getting correction done in PR Card. Heclaims that present respondent, who works as Surveyor, demandedRs.5,000/-, which subsequently reduced to Rs.2,000/- and as PW1complainant was not willing to pay, he lodged report with AntiCorruption Bureau (ACB) authorities. Anti Corruption Bureauauthorities summoned and engaged PW2 Devlal Karangle to act aspancha and to accompany complainant at the time of demandverification as well as at the time of trap. Accordingly, PW1 {4} ALS 09 OF 2024 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha seem to have visited office ofaccused and it is alleged that there was demand as well asacceptance. 5.PW1 Shankarlal Pandure, Complainant, in his evidence hasstated that when they went for pre-trap verification with voicerecorder, there was demand of Rs.5,000/- and finally accused camedown to Rs.2,000/-. At around 5:30 p.m., PW1 Complainantapproached accused while in the company of PW2 Shadow Panchaand in the varandah of the office, it has come in the evidence of PW1Complainant that he gave accused the demanded amount ofRs.2,000/-. Evidence of PW1 Complainant thus shows that there isno demand, rather there is direct offer after meeting accused in thevarandah. Even PW2 Shadow Pancha deposed that, it was PW1Complainant, who asked how much money is required to be paid.This also shows that prior to demand, there is offer. When PW1Complainant claims that there was demand of Rs.5,000/- and onnegotiations, amount to be brought to Rs.2,000/-, then it does not liein the mouth of PW1 Complainant to depose in witness box thataccused demanded Rs.5,000/-. 6.Though attempt was made to get demand recorded in voice {5} ALS 09 OF 2024recorder, there was no proper seizer of memory card apart fromfailure to tender certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian EvidenceAct. Therefore, very pre-trap panchanama has also come undershadow of doubt. As pointed out, in cross-examination, PW1complainant has answered that PW2 shadow pancha was outside thehall when there was conversation between him and accused and evenPW2 shadow pancha admitted that conversation was not audible tohim. For said reasons, case of prosecution has indeed come undershadow of doubt. 7.With above quality of evidence, more particularly, with seriousdoubt about very demand and admission of PW2 shadow pancharegarding his inability to hear the conversation between complainantand accused, no fault can be found in the judgment and order of trialCourt. No case being made out on merits to grant leave, followingorder is passed : ORDER (i) Application for Leave to Appeal is rejected. (ii) Criminal Application No.3280 of 2025 is disposed of. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE