The court held that the prosecution could not prove the serious charges of corruption against the excise employees.

It was alleged that excise inspector Vijay Shinde visited a country liquor shop at Khanapur taluka in 1990. The shop-owner Bhimrao Karande was not present. The inspector found unlicensed foreign liquor bottles in the shop, for which panchnama was done immediately. Karande was then summoned to the office of the Superintendent, State Excise.

The superintendent, inspector and a sub-inspector met Karande on a given date and demanded Rs 15,000 `to save his licence'. The superintendent repeated the demanded later, it is alleged that Karande. Karande lodged a complaint at the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Satara. Accordingly, as soon as Karande paid marked currency notes to the sub-inspector, deputysuperintendent of police (ACB) Jadhav raided the office and seized the notes. A chargesheet was filed before the Special Judge, Sangli and the three officials were declared guilty.

The officials then appealed in the high court stating that the trial judge failed to consider many aspects. First, an office diary clearly indicates that superintendent was not even present in the office when Karande alleged to have been asked for the bribe. The diary, which was not accepted as proof, shows the officer to be on tour duty. Second, DySP (ACB) and Karande colluded in pressurising the superintendent not to cancel the shop licence.

Jadhav took personal interest in the raid. Moreover, the incident took place in Sangli. But, the complaint was lodged in Satara office of the ACB, so that Jadhav could hold the key to investigation.

Justice V H Bhairavia of the BHC held that the trial judge should have trusted the contents of the office diary, which would show if the accused superintendent was not physically presentwhen the bribe was allegedly demanded. The judge has also pointed out that ACB inquiry would not have been sanctioned if the office diary was made available to the sanctioning authority.