Bombay HC: Can deleting sister's name from the revenue records mean that she has given up her share in the ancestral property?

 The questions formulated while admitting the Appeal are

answered as under:

(i) It is permissible to orally relinquish share in the

ancestral property by a coparcener in favour of another

coparcener in absence of a written instrument and in absence

of registration.

(ii) Oral relinquishment cannot be presumed on the basis of

a document created for the purpose of deletion of name from

revenue records, especially when such document by itself does

not effect relinquishment nor refers to any oral

relinquishment.

(iii) Mere expression of consent for allotment of share in the

ancestral property in favour of one of the coparceners forming

part of different unit does not automatically amount to

expression of relinquishment of share in the joint family

property falling to the share of claimant’s own unit. {Para 32}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SECOND APPEAL NO.679 OF 2023

Shekhar Shankar Joshi Vs Anita Arun Bhave

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Dated:  20 AUGUST 2026.

Citation: 026:BHC-AS:1

Print Page

Bombay HC: In a proceeding U/S 163-A or S 164 of the Motor vehicle Act, it is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim

 For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising by holding that in a proceeding under Section 163-A of the Act, it is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim. {Para 9}

(Emphasis supplied)

Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Gohar Mohammed Vs. U.P. SRTC2 has reiterated that the claimant is not required to plead or establish any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of vehicle or driver or any other person for payment of compensation under Section 164 of the MV Act. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid decision is reproduced below: -

48. The aforesaid provision has been brought where the claimant(s) is not required to plead or establish any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner(s) of the vehicle(s) or of any other person for payment of compensation. Therefore, sub-section (1) has been given overriding effect limiting the liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs 5 lakhs in case of death and Rs 2:50 lakhs in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or to the victims), as the case may be.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 1431 of 2025

Decided On: 09.06.2026

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Chandrakant Ravji Dore

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Aarti Sathe, J.

Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:23333,MANU/MH/4806/2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to appreciate evidence if there is contradiction in injuries found by doctor who examined victim first and doctor who examined him subsequently

 The prosecution examined PW8-Dr. Sarika Gadekar at Exhibit-108 who medically treated the injured-PW1 at MGM Hospital, Aurangabad on 11.06.2014. The PW8 deposed that PW1-Sikandar Baig narrated the history of the assault to his right eye and she found extra ocular movement restricted in all directions and the injured PW1 was diagnosed with "Traumatic Neuropathy" and was hospitalised w.e.f. 11.06.2014 to 16.06.2014. As per the evidence of PW8 at the time of admission injured PW1-Sikandar, one Medical Officer Dr. Mantra in OPD examined and noted four injuries i.e. 1) contusion on right eye, 2) abrasion on right clavicle 4x1 c.m., 3) abrasion on right clavicle 3x1 c.m. and 4) contusion on right forearm. However, the prosecution has not examined Dr. Mantra who initially examined the injured in MGM, Hospital so also no any X-ray, report of CT scan is produced on record to support the MLC certificate and only contusion injury was found on shoulder and black eye. So also the injuries which have been noticed by Dr. Mantra are different to the injuries which have been found by the Medical Officer PW7 who had firstly examined the injured. As per the evidence of PW1, he was unconscious soon after the incident and he was taken to MGM Hospital, Aurangabad, however, the discharge summary card of the injured-PW1 does not disclose history of unconsciousness of the injured PW1. Therefore, it appears that there is variance in the oral as well as MLC certificates. {Para 21}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2020 

Decided On: 02.03.2023

Sikandar Baig Amin Baig Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi and Y.G. Khobragade, JJ.

Author: Y.G. Khobragade, J.

Citation: 2023 All M R (Cri.) 1414, MANU/MH/1866/2023.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence of prosecution witness if they are accused in several cases?

 During his cross-examination, he admitted that one criminal case is pending against him and his son for taking forcible possession of land from Advocate Raju Shitole. He also admitted that there is one case pending against his son in law for the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in the Sessions Court. He admitted during his cross-examination that a criminal case is pending against him in the Court for assault on accused No. 3 Rakesh Modak. {Para 7}.

10. We have carefully perused the findings recorded by the trial Court and we are of the view that the view taken by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is a plausible view. There is no perversity as such. The findings recorded by the trial Court are in consonance with the evidence on record. The trial Court has recorded the finding that due to previous enmity, PW1 and Rakesh Modak and also other accused, there was every possibility of roping them as accused in the alleged incident.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 2003

Decided On: 23.12.2021

State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Hundraj Rupija and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde and Surendra P. Tavade, JJ.

Author: Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde, J.

Citation: 2022 All M R (Cri.) 3347,MANU/MH/4290/2021.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances, prosecution has failed to prove seizure of cloths and sword from possession of accused?

In the absence of independent evidence to establish that incriminating articles were seized from the respondents or at their instance, the evidence of P.S.I. Mule (P.W. 6) (Exh. 24), which is silent on the points that he seized blood stained swords at the instance of the respondents, wrapped them tightly, sealed them on the spot immediately after their seizure and sent them to the Chemical Analyzer in the same condition, would not be helpful to the prosecution to establish that the swords alleged to have been seized by this witness were used at the time of the incident. {Para 16}

17. P.S.I. Mule (P.W. 6) does not state that he seized the clothes of respondent No. 1. He states that he arrested respondent No. 2 on 02.11.1995 and seized the clothes from his person vide panchanama (Exh. 23). However, he does not state that the said clothes were stained with blood. Therefore, seizure of the clothes of respondent No. 2 would not connect him with the incident in question.

18. P.S.I. Mule (P.W. 6) further deposes that he arrested respondent No. 3 on 02.11.1995 and seized his blood stained clothes under panchanama (Exh. 22). However, this evidence is very vague and general. He does not state about the description of the clothes seized from the person of respondent No. 3. The incident took place on 26.10.1995. It does not appear to be natural and probable that after committing the alleged offences, respondent No. 3 would continue to wear the same clothes until his arrest on 02.11.1995, so as to enable P.S.I. Mule (P.W. 6) to collect incriminating evidence against him. Moreover, there is no whisper in the evidence of P.S.I. Mule (P.W. 6) that he wrapped those clothes, sealed them and sent them to the Chemical Analyzer in the same condition. In the circumstances, the seizure of clothes of respondent No. 3, even if accepted, would not connect him with the incident in question.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1999

Decided On: 08.09.2016

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shivaji and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde and Sangitrao S. Patil, JJ.

Author: Sangitrao S. Patil, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/2424/2016,2016 ALL M R (Cri) 4436.

Print Page

Bombay HC: If investigating officer fails to produce record of hospitals where injured were first taken, the court must draw adverse inference against prosecution

 Evidence is given by Satish (PW 1) and Ashrubai (PW 2) that deceased was first shifted to Washi Government Hospital. From there, he was shifted to Osmanabad Civil Hospital and then to Civil Hospital, Solapur. Though in the night time itself deceased was reached to Civil Hospital Solapur, the fact remains that the deceased was first taken to two Government Hospitals and there some record must have been created about the injuries sustained by the deceased and about the history given. In view of the nature of injury, the case must have been treated as medico legal case. No such record was collected by the investigating agency. There is only transfer certificate issued by Osmanabad Hospital to shift the deceased to Civil Hospital, Solapur. In the history of Solapur Hospital, there is a mention that it was M.L.C. In view of these circumstances and in view of the circumstance that much delay was caused in giving the F.I.R. by Satish (PW 1), it was necessary for investigating agency to collect the record from aforesaid two hospitals. Absence of such record shows that investigating agency was not fair. There is clear probability that the history, which is not suitable to prosecution case was given and such inference can be drawn due to such lacuna. {Para 15}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2018

Decided On: 03.10.2018

Umesh Bharat Gaikwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T.V. Nalawade and Vibha Kankanwadi, JJ.

Author: T.V. Nalawade, J.

Citation: 2019 ALL M R (Cri) 2302, MANU/MH/2823/2018.

Print Page

Bombay HC: If successive bail applications are filed with no change of circumstances, it is liable to be rejected

Upon careful perusal of the grounds raised in the present application, this Court finds that the contentions raised are repetitive and those were already advanced and considered by this Court and eventually, rejected the same while rejecting the bail BA No.2316.2025 order in earlier application. No fresh reasons have been brought to the notice of the Court justifying reconsideration of the matter to change the view previously taken by this Court. It is rather established principle that the successive bail application must be founded on material with change in circumstance. In absence of such change, the application deserves to be rejected. {Para 21}

22. To secure bail, the applicant must establish that the evidence collected and intended to be presented by the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case of the applicant's involvement in or commission of the alleged offence. Since this necessary aspect has not been satisfied by the applicant, the applicant is presently disentitled to claim the bail. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2316 OF 2025

SHUBHAM NARAYAN WAGH Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

Date : 5th December, 2025

Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:36563

Print Page

Bombay HC: Witness deposing particular incident as per his statement read over to him by police short time before evidence, said evidence becomes inadmissible

In the light of above, very little value needs to be attached to the evidence of P.W. 3 Vishnu because he appears to have deposed the particular incident not by recollecting the evidence of that incident but what has been read out by him from the police statement, short time before he deposed. Under these circumstances, in the first place, entire evidence of this witness becomes inadmissible and even if it be held that it is admissible evidence, no value whatsoever can be attached to his evidence, which evidence even otherwise as already stated aforesaid does not appear to be convincing and is contrary to the evidence of complainant on the material aspect of demand and acceptance.

{Para 24}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 1999

Decided On: 08.10.2014

Rustam Ukarda Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.N. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: 2016 ALL M R (Cri) 248,MANU/MH/3022/2014.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Witness can not stealthily refresh his memory before entering the Court and deposing about the entire evidence giving minute details as if he was reeling them out from his memory.

 In the backdrop of the afore-said evidence, it will be useful to refer reported decision by the learned Single Judge of this Court (R.C. Chavan, J) reported in 2006(2) Mh.L.J. (Cri) 1210, Sharad s/o. Namdeorao Shirbhate vs. State of Maharashtra.

31. In para 10 of the said reported Judgment, the learned Single Judge found that Pundlik (PW-1) has admitted that the police had read over his statement to him and also told him to tender the evidence as per his statement. The learned Single Judge has observed thus : {Para 31}

"There would indeed be nothing wrong in the witness refreshing his memory, but that ought to be done before the Court and not outside the Court. In order to test the veracity of a witness, he would be required to recollect the incident out of his own memory and should be falter on some material aspect, he could be allowed to refresh his memory with reference to the contemporaneous records of the incident created by the police. It would not be permissible for such witness to stealthily refresh his memory before entering the Court and deposing about the entire evidence giving minute details as if he was reeling them out from his memory. Therefore, the objection to the reliability of evidence of PW-2 Prabhakar taken by learned Counsel for the appellant is valid."

(emphasis is supplied by us).

We approve the dictum of the learned Single Judge in that behalf.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2012

Decided On: 31.10.2014

Suresh Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and V.M. Deshpande, JJ.

Author: V.M. Deshpande, J.

Citation: 2015 ALL M R (Cri) 4243,MANU/MH/2012/2014.

Print Page

Bombay HC: When prosecution has failed to prove motive or intention to commit murder?

The alleged motive behind the incident does not appear to be natural and probable. The informant states that the respondents uttered that he had become arrogant and started giving sword blows on his person. When, in what manner and what arrogance was shown by the informant is not made clear before the Court. The informant could have made mention of certain prior incident on the basis of which it could have been inferred that the respondents were prompted to cause deadly assault on the informant. There is absolutely nothing on record to show as to why the respondents would think of killing the informant. Thus, the very ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the LP. Code, i.e. intention to commit murder, is not established by the prosecution. {Para 19}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1999

Decided On: 08.09.2016

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shivaji and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde and Sangitrao S. Patil, JJ.

Author: Sangitrao S. Patil, J.

Citation: 2016 ALL M R (Cri) 4436,MANU/MH/2424/2016.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances non examination of independent witnesses creates cloud of doubt about prosecution story.?

  The spot panchanama Exhibit-94 proves that towards southern side of the spot of incident there is a temple and house of one Deshmukh and 7 to 8 houses towards southern side of the spot of the incident and towards west of the spot there is Malapuri-Hirapur road and the incident had occurred in the day light when usually the villagers always remain present in their fields or proceed towards their fields. As per the evidence of PW1 and PW2 itself, it shows that many villagers were gathered at the spot of the incident besides the accused persons and some of the villagers brought the injured at Civil Hospital, Beed. However, the Investigating Officer has not recorded statement of any witnesses and no eye witnesses have been examined, the spot of incident is open and surrounded by houses. It is not the case of the prosecution that no independent eye witnesses were present at the spot when the incident occurred.  Nonetheless, as per evidence of the PW1 & PW2 other villagers were present at the spot of incident but no independent witnesses are examined. Therefore, non examination of independent witnesses itself creates cloud of doubt about prosecution story.

{Para 18}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2020 

Decided On: 02.03.2023

Sikandar Baig Amin Baig Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi and Y.G. Khobragade, JJ.

Author: Y.G. Khobragade, J.

Citation: 2023 All M R (Cri.) 1414, MANU/MH/1866/2023.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Prosecution not examining persons residing in vicinity of spot of offence, adverse inference is to be drawn against prosecution

 On evaluation of the prosecution evidence, it is clear that except the evidence of injured PW-3 Vivek, there is no other evidence brought on record by the prosecution to corroborate his version. {Para 14}

17. Admittedly, there were shops around the shop of PW-3 Vivek where the alleged incident had taken place. There was a road in front of his shop and there were two shops beyond the road. However, the prosecution has not examined a single independent witness in support of its case. Adverse inference in terms of Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 therefore needs to be drawn against the prosecution.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2012

Decided On: 22.06.2021

Ravi Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.B. Suryawanshi, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1522/2021,2021 (3) B Cr C 774

Print Page

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances prosecution has failed to give explanation for delay in FIR?

 Further, Dr. Sanjay (PW 5) from Life Line Hospital, examined by the prosecution, nowhere states in his evidence that when the first informant was admitted in the hospital he was unconscious. On the contrary, his evidence states as under :-

"When the patient had been to the hospital he was in conscious condition."

Further, a contemporary document (Exh.45), the certificate at the time of admission of the present applicant at Life Line Hospital, clearly shows that, on examination, the doctor found him conscious, not only conscious, but well oriented. Further, there is nothing available on record that he was not conscious during the period when he was admitted in the hospital. Therefore, on the available medical papers and the evidence from the doctor, we will have to discard the evidence of the applicant/first informant that he could not lodge the report till 30.12.2000, for the reason that he was unconscious. In that view of the matter, the prosecution has completely failed to give explanation for recording of the first information report at belated stage.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

Shri Yatin Laxman Pabale Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Criminal Revision Application No.71 of 2002

16th January, 2015.

Citation: 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 1299

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether the court should believe prosecution case if it fails to bring on record articles which were obtained by accused by torturing the wife?

 The first information report (Exh. 27) discloses that the marriage of the first informant was performed with the applicant on 9.3.1993 and the couple is having one daughter by name Sonu, who at the relevant time was aged 2 1/2 years. The first information report further proceeds that she was given nice treatment by all the accused for 5-6 months. Thereafter, the applicant started demanding Rs. 10,000/-, to be brought from her father, for obtaining R.M.P. (Registered Medical Practitioner) degree. She disclosed the said fact to her father, and her father gave Rs. 10,000/- to the applicant and thereafter he obtained the degree of R.M.P. from Chandrapur. It is further alleged that thereafter her father established one dispensary at village Maltekadi. {Para 6}

The first information report further states that greed of the applicant was not satisfied and he started demanding Rs. 25,000/- from the first informant for establishing a big dispensary, which was refused by her father. Therefore, she was subjected to all sorts of atrocities at his hand, resulting into holding a meeting by her father. In the said meeting various independent respectable persons from the society participated and they tried to prevail upon the mind of the applicant that he should not continue his acts of ill treatment upon the first informant, however, the applicant did not budge and he was insisting that the first informant should give signature on blank stamp paper.

If the prosecution case is to be believed, the demand started after 5-6 months of the marriage and demand was for specific reason namely for obtaining a degree of R.M.P. According to the prosecution, the said demand was fulfilled by the father Yadav (P.W. 3). Therefore, the prosecution was under obligation to bring said R.M.P. degree on record because it is the specific case of the prosecution that in pursuance to the fulfillment of the demand the applicant obtained the degree from Chandrapur and then he started his medical practice. From the record, it shows that no attempts were made to procure the said degree.

Further the house of the applicant was also visited at the time of drawing the spot panchanama (Exh. 39). The spot panchanama does not reveal any reference of the degree being found in the said house. Thus, the very foundation of the prosecution case that in pursuance to the fulfillment of the demand by the parents of the first informant the applicant obtained degree and started practice, appears to be doubtful. It is the further case of the prosecution that after obtaining degree, the father established dispensary for the applicant at village Maltekadi, however, there is nothing on record to substantiate the said claim.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Revision Application No. 75 of 2003

Decided On: 18.02.2015

Shivanand Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.M. Deshpande, J.

Citation: 2015 ALL M R (Cri) 2181,MANU/MH/1245/2015.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether the court can convict accused based on S 164 CRPC statements of prosecution witnesses?

 Trial Court was wrong in convicting the Appellant by taking recourse to statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the basis of the evidence of the learned Magistrate and the medical evidence, statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code can be treated as previous statement only. There are certain differences recognized by the legislatures in the statement under Section 161 on one hand and statement under Section 164 of the Code on the other hand. They can be summarized as follows :--

SECTION 161: statement before the Police need not be signed

SECTION 164: the statement before the Magistrate is signed.However this is not so in statement before the Police. Prior to recording the statement, learned Magistrate can administer the oath to the maker. This is not the case herein. the statement under Section 164 stands on higher pedestal {Para 70}

71. So if we look at the weightage and value of evidence of judicial officer from all the angles, we may find that his evidence cannot be said direct on the point of happening of the incident. Because he is not giving the evidence on the basis of facts seen by him. His evidence is on the point of what he has heard through the mouth of the victim.

72. So for what purpose this provision is included in the Code. The mechanism created by the Code is investigation carried out by the police including recording the statement of the witnesses. Recording statement through the Magistrate is also a part of investigation. Such statement stands on higher pedestal than the police statement. Still we can not attach more value than recognized by the law. Such statement falls within the category of 'previous statement' only. Its use is permissible in the mode prescribed in the Evidence Act only.

73. Does it mean to say that this statement can be the basis for conviction just because it is recorded by judicial official and oath is administered? Answer is 'No'. The reason is this statement is not recorded in the presence of the accused and there is no opportunity of the cross-examination to the maker of the statement when such statement is recorded by the Magistrate. So ultimately, when Magistrate gives evidence, his evidence is not the evidence about the witnessing the incident but it is evidence of facts stated before him by the victim.

• Use of such statement

74. If the victim reiterates what she has stated earlier, such statement can be used for corroboration under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. If there is variance in between the particulars stated in such statement and the oral evidence, that statement can be used for the purpose of the contradiction by the defence. So also if the victim has resiled from the statement, it can be used for cross-examination by prosecution. In this case, prosecution has availed of this opportunity. The victim has disowned the contents.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2019

Decided On: 09.05.2024

Deelip Tatoba Raje Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.M. Modak, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3173/2024.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

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

Bombay HC: Statutory presumption U/S 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can arise only after the prosecution proves the foundational fact of 'demand'

 The basic requirement of demand is required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to prove the charges for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, the proof of demand of illegal gratification is absolutely necessary as it is sine qua non of the offence. If the prosecution fails to prove this demand of illegal gratification, the charge against the appellant therefore, for the aforesaid offences would fail. It is clearly established in several judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the judgment in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in MANU/SC/0250/2023 : 2023:INSC:245 : (2023) 18 SCC 251, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the possession of the accused without proof of demand would not establish the offence under under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. In absence of proof of demand and illegal gratification and use of corrupt or illegal means to obtain any valuable or pecuniary advantage, it cannot be said that the offence of taking bribe is proved. Thus, the proof of demand has been held to be indispensable ingredient. Therefore, failure on the part of prosecution to prove demand and illegal gratification, would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the appellant/accused would not entail his conviction for the said offences. {Para 14}

15. It is settled law that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the said Act can arise only after the prosecution proves the foundational fact of 'demand'. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2007

Decided On: 24.12.2025

Dadasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/9193/2025,AIROnline 2025 BOM 1595.

Print Page