Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench

Order Date: 08 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant Tulshidas s/o Yemaji Zaveri, District Manager, Maharashtra State Other Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation Ltd., Osmanabad; Respondent State of Maharashtra.
  • Criminal Appeal No.267 of 2007 challenging Special Judge’s judgment dated 03 July 2007 in Special Case (AC) No.4 of 2005.
  • Conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; original sentence: one year rigorous imprisonment + Rs 1,000 fine (default two months) and two years rigorous imprisonment + Rs 2,000 fine (default four months), concurrent.
  • Factual matrix: complainant Kailas Sarpale sought Rs 40,000 loan; alleged demand of Rs 1,000 reduced to Rs 600 for forwarding loan; trap operation on 16 September 2004 using anthracene‑treated notes; accused No.2 Chandrakant Baburao Mali accepted notes; notes recovered from appellant’s cabin; no anthracene on appellant’s hands.
  • Prosecution witnesses: PW‑1 (complainant), PW‑2 (shadow panch), PW‑3 (sanctioning MD Avinash Gote), PW‑4 (Inspector Najan), PW‑5 (Accountant Amol Pohare). Contradictions noted in testimonies regarding demand, receipt of application fee, presence of PW‑5, and handling of loan file.
  • Defence argued false implication by PW‑5, lack of demand proof, absence of anthracene on appellant, and procedural irregularities.
  • Court referred to Supreme Court precedents (Satyanarayana Murthy 2015; Neeraj Dutta 2023) emphasizing that proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13.
  • Court found prosecution failed to establish demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt; statutory presumption under Section 20 not triggered.

Final Outcome

  • Criminal Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment and order dated 03 July 2007 quashed and set aside.
  • Appellant acquitted of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
  • Bail bond (if any) cancelled; surety discharged.
  • Any fine paid to be refunded to appellant.
  • Record and proceedings to be sent back to the concerned lower court.

Topics: Corruption Law, Judicial Appeal