The State Of Maharashtra vs Prakash Ramdas Shimpi

CNR No : HCBM010110282025

2026:BHC-AS:45223
ALS-15-2025 (J) C3.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (STATE) NO. 15 OF 2025
The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant
(Orig.
Complainant)
Versus
Prakash Ramdas Shimpi,
Age: 51 Yrs, Occu. Service,
R/o: Shrikrishna Nagar, Varad Vinayak Bunglo,
Bunglow No.24, Takli Road, Nashik Road,
...Respondent
Nashik.
(Orig. Accused)

Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for the Applicant/State.
Mr. Arpit N. Mutha for the Respondent.
NAVNATH
SITARAM
WAGHMARE
Digitally signed by
NAVNATH SITARAM
WAGHMARE
Date: 2026.11.05
16:32:04 +0530
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
th
DATE : 05 NOVEMBER, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. The State has filed this application seeking leave to file appeal
against the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2024 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge-6, Nashik in Special (ACB) Case No. 11 of 2019. By the
said impugned order, the present Respondent (Original Accused) is
acquitted of offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’, for short).
2. The case of the prosecution, in short is as under.
2.1. That on 26.12.2018, Informant/Akshay Ravindra Ohol had
applied for obtaining money lending licence with the Dy. Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, Nashik through online mode. Due to inaction on his
application, he filed Right to Information (‘RTI’ for short) application
dated 03.03.2019. Thereafter, on 30.03.2019 the Accused/Prakash
Navnath Waghmare 1
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 16:47:20

ALS-15-2025 (J) C3.doc

Shimpi who is an officer in the concerned office, contacted by his
mobile phone on the mobile phone of the informant and called him to
his office. The informant went there on the same day and met him.
Respondent/Accused told the informant to meet one Mr. Karvande and
gave his mobile number and told to contact him. On the same day,
Informant contacted Mr. Karvande and met him at his office at Bodhale
Nagar. Mr. Karvande told him to give his PAN Card, Aadhar Card and
Rs.50,000/- and he will talk to the officer. Informant then went to the
office of the Respondent /Accused who told him to comply as Karvande
said and told that thereafter his licence work will be done.
2.2 That the informant then filed first RTI appeal dated 20.04.2019
but no action was taken on it.
2.3. That then informant filed online Complaint with Anti Corruption
Bureau (‘ACB’ for short) office on 06.04.2019. Subsequently, on
17.05.2019, the Informant went to the office of ACB, Nashik and
lodged complaint complaining demand of bribe. Accordingly, the officer
had called two panchas and the Informant lodged his report in their
presence.
2.4. That on 18th and 19th May, 2019 it was holiday, so the
verification and further action was decided to be done on 20.05.2019.
Firstly, one panch and informant were sent to the office of
Respondent /Accused where Respondent/Accused demanded bribe
from the informant. Then, as per procedure, trap was laid and the
Respondent / Accused accepted bribe amount by telling the informant
to keep it inside the register on his table. Accordingly, bribe amount
was kept in the register and then ACB team came there and caught the
Accused. All the necessary procedure was complied and thereafter, on
Navnath Waghmare 2
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 16:47:20

ALS-15-2025 (J) C3.doc

the same day, the informant lodged FIR with Mumbai Naka police
station and crime came to be registered against Respondent / Accused
vide C.R. No.229/2019.
3. During investigation, the ACB officer prepared all the
necessary panchnamas, took the voice sample of Respondent /Accused,
prepared the transcript of the conversion between informant and the
Accused, recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion of
investigation, they found sufficient material against the Accused and
after obtaining sanction from competent authority, charge-sheet was
filed.
4. Charge was framed and the Respondent / Accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses. PW-1 is the
Complainant/ Informant. PW-2 is a panch witness present at the time
when the informant lodged complaint and for pre & post-trap
panchnama, PW-3 is the person who prepared hash value certificates
and who has deposed regarding how digital voice recorded was given to
the informant for recording of the conversation. PW-4 is the sanctioning
Authority. PW-5 is the Assistant Co-operative Officer in the office where
Respondent/Accused worked. PW-6 is the Police Constable who was
told to take online complaint of the informant and who has taken out
printout and given certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. PW-7 is the Investigating Officer (‘IO’ for short) and PW-8 is
also an IO who conduced remaining investigation.
6. Statement of Respondent/Accused under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’ for short) was recorded.
Defence of the Respondent / Accused is that of total denial and filing of
Navnath Waghmare 3
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 16:47:20

ALS-15-2025 (J) C3.doc

false and fabricated case against him.
SUBMISSIONS
7. Learned APP has submitted as under. That Corroboration
made by PW-2 about demand of entire amount is not considered by
Trial Court. That delay in lodging of complaint is sufficiently explained
by the Complainant as he was busy in his examination and studies. That
the Trial Court ought to have considered that Complainant had small
android phone and thus, complaint could not be given in detail. That
evidence of PW-2 about keeping money in register is not properly
considered. That register has been found shining in ultra violet light
showing tainted notes kept there. That demand was forwarded through
Mr. Karwade, which ought to have been considered. That script of
conversation recorded has been written in panchnama, which proves
demand.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent /
accused has submitted as under. That re-appreciation of same evidence
and substitution of view is not permitted. That presumption of
innocence stands fortified in favour of Respondent / accused and unless
view taken is shown to be perverse, manifestly illegal or wholly
unreasonable, leave should not be granted. That the very foundational
document which constitutes the genesis of the alleged transaction is not
proved. Alleged application seeking money lending licence, RTI
Application, RTI appeal and online complaint to ACB dated 06.04.2019
are not seized and not proved by the Investigating agency. That initial
demand on 30.03.2019 and demand during verification dated
20.05.2019, are not proved. That complaint made on 06.04.2019,
which is made earliest in point in time, does not reflect demand made
Navnath Waghmare 4
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 16:47:20

ALS-15-2025 (J) C3.doc

by accused. That Mr. Karvande has not been made witness and his
statement does not support the allegation that he demanded money.
CDR/SDR of Karvande is not taken. That prosecution has failed to
satisfactorily establish the alleged demand. That recovery cannot
substitute proof of demand. That accused directing the complainant to
keep the money in the register is not reflected in the transcript. That
Accused was not the final authority for grant of licence. That the
sanctioning authority admitted that she has not received application
dated 26.12.2018 seeking money lending licence, RTI Application dated
03.03.2019, RTI appeal dated 20.04.2019. Therefore, there is no
application of mind by sanctioning authority, vitiating sanction. He
relied on Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi). AIR 2023 SC
(Criminal) 631, in support of his case.
9. Both learned APP and learned counsel for the Respondent has
taken the Court through depositions of various witnesses.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION
10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
impugned order and other record shown.
11. The Learned Trial Judge has held that the mobile conversation
and contact between informant and Mr. Karvande dated 30.03.2019
(First demand) is not recorded. It is held that why the informant did not
lodge the report with ACB Office on the first date of demand, is not
explained in the FIR. PW-7- I.O. has admitted that CDR and SDR of the
informant and Karvande are not obtained. It is rightly held that
surprisingly, Mr. Karvande through whom, alleged demand was made,
has not been examined.
Navnath Waghmare 5
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 16:47:20

ALS-15-2025 (J) C3.doc

12. Learned Judge has further observed that in Exh.22 (online
complaint), the informant has not said that agent demanded bribe. In
cross examination the informant has stated that since the application
was online he has not given details. The learned Judge has found that
what prevented the informant from giving details is not stated by the
informant and as such initial demand itself is not proved.
13. The explanation that there was a provision of limited words in
the online complaint form has not been accepted by the Trial Court,
rightly in my opinion, as it cannot be understood why nowhere in the
complaint it is stated that accused demanded bribe of Rs. 50,000/- or
agent demanded bribe of Rs.50,000/-.
14. Learned Trial Judge has found material omissions about the
amount of bribe demanded for which no reasons could be assigned.
Trial Court has considered that online complaint Exh.22 was filed on
06.04.2019 and Written Complaint Exh.18 was dated 17.05.2019 and
such delay in lodging FIR is not properly explained. Learned Trial Judge
has considered the transcripts and held that informant himself was
dealing about bribe amount and no such talk was started and no such
demand was made by the accused.
15. Learned Judge has considered the oral evidence of PW-2 in
detail and has concluded that there was a rush of people in the office
and hearing of conversation on nearby tables was possible. However, no
independent witness has been examined by the prosecution.
16. Learned Judge has also held that the shirt of the informant in
which tainted currency notes were kept, according to prosecution, is
also not seized, giving rise to suspicion.
Navnath Waghmare 6
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 16:47:20

ALS-15-2025 (J) C3.doc

17. The sanctioning authority PW-4 has admitted in cross-
examination that she has not asked for online application dated
26.12.2018, RTI application dated 03.03.2019, RTI Appeal dated
20.04.2019 and online complaint dated 06.04.2019. Therefore, even
the sanction has been found vitiated.
18. It has come on record through deposition of PW-5 Assistant
Co-operative Officer working in Deputy Registrar’s office, that the
Respondent/Accused (Class III employee) had no authority to issue
money lending license.
19. Thus, the learned Trial Judge has considered the evidence on
record in detail and has come to the conclusion that alleged offence has
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
20. On going through the impugned order and various
depositions. I do not find any perversity or manifest illegality or findings
contrary to the evidence on record. The view taken by the learned Trial
Judge is a probable view.
21. Hence, no case for grant of leave is made out. Leave
application is rejected.

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Navnath Waghmare 7
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 16:47:20
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)