2025:BHC-NAG:9723 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1296 OF 2023 Mangesh Prabhakar Rathod, Aged about 43 yrs, Occ. Doctor, R/o. Near Dr. Doiphode Hospital, Pusad Naka, Washim, Tq. and Dist. Washim …...APPLICANT ...V E R S U S...

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Anti Corruption Bureau, Washim, Tq. and Dist. Washim.

2. Sadanand Gajanan Tayade, Aged about 34 yrs, Occ. Social Worker, R/o Chandika Ves, Malipura, Washim, Tq. Dist. Washim. .....NON-

APPLICANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. H.D. Marathe, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM:- RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.

Date : 23.09.2025 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard. With the consent of the parties, application is decided finally at the stage of admission.

2. By the present application, the applicant, who is original accused, is assailing order dated 03.08.2023, passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Washim, rejecting his application for discharge.

3. In short, it is the case of prosecution that on 22– 7–2015 a complaint was lodge by non-applicant no. 2, in which he alleged that he was doing social work and his maternal brother Vilas Wankhede was taking treatment from mental Hospital. According to the complaint, complainant along with his maternal brother, Vilas went to civil Hospital, Washim and obtained one chit and applied for mental certificate of Vilas. According to the case of prosecution, chit was given mentioning that they should visit applicant’s clinic(who was a psychiatrist) and it was told to them by the concern Employee to bring the signature and stamp of the applicant on the papers. According to the prosecution, informant along with Vilas visited private clinic and showed necessary papers about mental treatment, where upon the applicant demanded amount of ₹300. After negotiation, the applicant agreed to accept amount of ₹200 which, as per prosecution was bribe accepted by the applicant. Trap laid by the anticorruption bureau became successful and applicant was caught red handed while accepting bribe of ₹200 on 29–7–2015.

4. learned counsel Mr. Sirpurkar, for applicant has contended that initial appointment of the applicant as Psychiatric with District Civil Surgeon's office as a Member of Medical Board was for a particular period, and therefore, after lapse of period, it cannot be called as a service rendered by the Public Servant. In order to buttress his contention, he has brought my attention to the documents, more particularly, the appointment order which is at page 39 of the application. If the said appointment order is perused, it would reveal that the appointment of the applicant was on contractual basis from 11.9.2014 till 31.3.2015 on the post of Psychiatric. The appointment order further shows that the payment/ honorarium was to be made ‘on call basis’. According to Mr. Sirpurkar, since the offence in question is committed on 29.7.2015, he cannot be held liable since his services had already came to an end on 31.3.2015. He further contends that after 31.3.2015, his services were not continued and therefore, on the day of incident i.e. 29.07.2015, he cannot be called as a Public Servant, as defined under the provisions of the Act and consequently, cannot be prosecuted for commission of offence under the Act.

5. Mr. Sirpurkar has also invited my attention to the document dated 6.8.2015 which is a Query Report. A query was put by the Investigating Officer to the District Civil Surgeon in which a question was put as to on 29.7.2015 which persons were occupying the post. A query was also put to provide information regarding the present applicant’s promotion and other service details. According to Mr. Sirpurkar, queries were answered on 21.8.2015 which are totally vague. He further contends that no specific answer has be