The High Court has upheld the trial court's decision to acquit Shri Shashikant Dnyanu Jadhav, rejecting the appeal filed by the prosecution. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Jadhav demanded or accepted a bribe. Key witness testimonies were inconsistent, and there was no clear evidence to establish the foundational facts necessary for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

1. Hostile Witness Testimony

• The primary witness, Mr. Gujar, provided conflicting statements during the trial, leading the court to question the reliability of his testimony. His inconsistent claims alternately implicated and exonerated Mr. Jadhav, making his evidence unreliable.

2. Lack of Evidence for Bribe Demand

• The court emphasized that while there was testimony regarding the acceptance of money, there was no concrete evidence of a demand for a bribe. Without clear proof of demand and the purpose of the payment, the court could not convict Mr. Jadhav under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. Absence of Foundational Facts

• The court noted that the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires established foundational facts. In this case, such facts were not sufficiently proven, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

4. No Prosecution Sanction for PSI Sandbhor

• A significant factor in the acquittal was the lack of prosecution sanction against PSI Sandbhor, who was allegedly involved. The absence of this sanction weakened the prosecution's case and contributed to the court's decision to acquit Mr. Jadhav.