Bombay HC: Whether Sanction authority must give sanction for prosecution if the work for which bribe was given had already completed?

 From above testimony of sanctioning authority, as pointed out, it is emerging that this authority has also received documents comprising of processed papers which were already dispatched to both, Passport Office at Pune as well as concerned police station. If this was admitted, then as pointed out, on the day of main trap dated 23rd December 2005, there was no work with accused and rather it was already processed and forwarded to the concerned office. If this was the situation, then, as rightly held by the trial court, this authority ought to have refused to accord sanction by noting that there was no motive or work of complainant to offer bribe or for accused to accept the same. Therefore, there are reason to hold that there is no complete application of mind to the entire documents received by this sanctioning authority. {Para 21}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2011 and Criminal Application No. 1151 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2011

Decided On: 11.03.2026

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Navnath Dipa Vetal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/2382/2026,2026 NCBHC-AUG 10345.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Conviction of accused for offence under Prevention of Corruption Act is not permissible if voice recording of trap was not played in the court at the time of evidence

 Now, turning towards the electronic evidence, it is to be noted that the said panchanama including the transcript of the dialogues exchanged is stated to have been prepared on the basis of what was heard from the voice recorder. No doubt, it appears that by taking out hash value the said voice recorder was sent to the forensic lab for analysis with the sample of the voice, but no efforts appears to have been taken by the prosecution to play that voice recorder or the CD prepared therefrom during the course of the testimony of P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5. Mere submission of the certificate will not absolve the prosecution from identifying the voice before the Court. The report of the forensic lab would be in the form of opinion of an expert and the concerned authority may come to a conclusion that the voice, which has been heard in both the devices, are of the same person. But it has to be concluded that, the said voice is of the accused and that can be done only before the trial Court. Therefore, taking into consideration all the abovesaid evidence, scanning thereof and the reasons aforesaid, it cannot be said that the offence was proved by the prosecution against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the point is answered in the negative. {Para 18}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2017

Decided On: 05.08.2022

Shobha Sonba Raut Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: 2022 ALLMR (Cri) 3199,MANU/MH/2655/2022.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether accused can be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act if he was not the final authority in sanctioning the bill of informant?

 As noted earlier, the respondent was not the final authority in sanctioning the bill submitted by the PW-1. The respondent while performing his duty had already raised objections pertaining to the bill submitted by PW-1 and the said bills were forwarded to the Malwan office and therefore there was no reason for respondent even to demand bribe from PW-1. It appears that, as the respondent had raised objections in the bill submitted by the complainant (PW-1), he had grudge against the respondent about the same and therefore had every reason to plant tainted money on the person of respondent. The respondent was thus successful in rebutting the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. {Para 8}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 1256 of 2012

Decided On: 23.10.2020

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shridhar Madhavrao Murti

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Gadkari, J.

Citation: 2021 ALLMR(Cri) 2829,MANU/MH/1777/2020.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Panch stating that accused demanded money by winking his eye,no corroboration by informant, acquittal of accused proper

This leads me to deal with the crucial point involved in the present Appeal i.e. demand made by the respondent for illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/-. Minute perusal of evidence of the informant (PW-1) would clearly reveal that, it is totally silent on the aspect of demand on 10th April 2006. The panch witness (PW-2) in his testimony though has stated that, the respondent by winking his eyes to the PW-1 indicated demand of bribe amount. The said version of PW-2 is not at all corroborated by the prime witness i.e. informant (PW-1). The evidence on record is also absolutely silent about verification of pre-trap demand by the respondent on 6th April 2006. {Para 5}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 1256 of 2012

Decided On: 23.10.2020

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shridhar Madhavrao Murti

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Gadkari, J.

Citation: 2021 ALLMR(Cri) 2829,MANU/MH/1777/2020.

Print Page