JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the State. 2. The respondent was charged for offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The complainant - PW-1 - Vilas Tadas gave an oral report on 14th May, 1999 regarding demand of bribe by the respondent. 4. Heard learned APP Mr. Doifode for the appellant and learned Adv. Mr. Mohit Khajanchi for the respondent. 5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur, completed all formalities prior to raid, and conducted the raid. 6. According to prosecution:- [a] The accused person demanded the amount of bribe from the complainant in presence of PW-2 - Panch Witness Raghunath Narayan Rathod. [b] Amount was paid by the complainant in presence of PW-2 - Raghunath Rathod to the accused. [c] When the raid was conducted, the accused expressed that he had accepted the money, but he was being involved. [d] The second Panchanama as to process of raid was prepared. The expression of the accused noted in foregoing point is recorded in second Panchanama. [e] After completing the formalities and lodging First Information Report, further investigation was completed and chargesheet was filed. 7. In the trial, in all five witnesses as below were examined:- [a] PW-1 - Vilas Tadas : Complainant. [b) PW-2 - Raghunath : Panch witness of Narayan : first Panchanama Rathod : and raid [c) PW-3 - Shriram : Ex. Dy. Director of Vithobaji : Land Records Kulmethe. : granting sanction : for prosecution [d] PW-4 - Vinayak : Retd. Dy. S.P., Tukaram : one of the Hiware : Investigating : Officers, who filed : charge-sheet. [e] PW-5 – R. J. : Retd. Police Sharma : Inspector who : was a member of : the Raiding party : and Investigating : Officer 8. The defence of the accused as seen from the cross-examination, statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code and defence evidence is that he had received the amount for payment to Mr. Barsagade, the peon, who was expected to arrange from that amount the pointer, other devices and aids of measurement which were required at the time of measurement for which the complainant was required to spend. 9. Barsagade, the peon, who was expected to arrange from that amount the pointer, other devices and aids of measurement which were required at the time of measurement for which the complainant was required to spend. 9. In the process of appreciation of evidence, the learned Special Judge found, and has recorded in the Judgment that:- [a] The demand of amount was proved from the testimony of PW-1 - Vilas Tadas. [b] The demand was not proved from the testimony of PW-2 - Raghunath N. Rathod. [c] However, version of PW-1 - Vilas Rathod was adequate enough to prove the demand of amount of bribe by the accused. [d] Payment of amount to the accused was proved by PW-1 - Vilas Tadas and PW-2 - Raghunath Rathod. [e] Recovery of amount from the conscious possession, i.e., the pocket of the accused, and the currency notes being the same which were par of first Panchanama, was proved. [f] The accused had discharged the burden by offering an explanation that the amount was not received by him towards bribe, as it was received by the accused for and on behalf of Mr. Barsagade, the Peon. [g] Complainant had admittedly deposited Rs.1,000/- as Measurement Fees. Did he mean urgent measurement, as per rules, he was required to pay Rs.500/- more. [h] Admittedly, complainant urged for urgent measurement which he could have got done by officially depositing Rs.500/more and, therefore, it is still a mystery as to why should the complainant offer to pay Rs.500/- as bribe instead of paying Rs,500/- as legitimate fees. 10. Learned Special Judge, therefore, found substance in the defence of the accused. Learned Special Judge considered that the accused had discharged his burden of rebuttal to a required degree, i.e., to suggest probability, and hence ordered acquittal. 11. The State in this appeal claims reversal of acquittal, and prays for conviction. Points urged by learned APP Mr. S.S. Doifode with emphasis are as folIows:- [1] Demand, acceptance and payment of bribe, and recovery thereof from the accused being proved, burden to rebut was on the accused. [2] The burden of rebuttal is not discharged by the accused. 11. The State in this appeal claims reversal of acquittal, and prays for conviction. Points urged by learned APP Mr. S.S. Doifode with emphasis are as folIows:- [1] Demand, acceptance and payment of bribe, and recovery thereof from the accused being proved, burden to rebut was on the accused. [2] The burden of rebuttal is not discharged by the accused. [3] The defence witness is unworthy of trust, as his version is not proved, and presence of this defence witness is doubtful, as it does not come in the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses that the third person, who probably could be the defence witness, was present on the spot. [4] The defence could have by independent evidence and additional witnesses proved the presence of defence witness on the spot when the raid was conducted which has not been done by the accused. [5] The Peon - Barsagade could have been examined by defence, which has not been done, whose testimony could have been the best evidence which the defence has failed to tender. [6] The accused was expected to express the purpose for which he had accepted the amount, had the amount received by him not been bribe, he would have in reflex or as his natural reaction expressed accordingly, when the raid was conducted. [7] It is not suggested that the second Panchanama by raiding party is incorrectly recorded as regards narration of expression of the accused. [8] It is not suggested that the reaction of the accused as recorded in the Panchanama was incorrect. The reaction of the accused recorded in the Panchanama is that he admits having received the amount, and only says that 'he is being involved. [9] Had it been a reality that he had received money for Mr. Barsagade, his natural reaction could have been so, which he has not expressed. 12. In support of submissions, learned APP Mr. Doifode has placed reliance on following judgments:- [1] Ram Krishnan and another Vs. State of Delhi [ AIR 1956 SC 476 (S) AIR V 43 C 82 June) sic], [2] Tarsem Lal Vs. State of Haryana [ AIR 1987 SC 806 ], [3] M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2001 Cri.L.J. 515] : [2001 ALL MR (Cri) 565 (S.C.)], [4] T. Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2004 Cri.L.J. 884], [5] V. Radhakrishna Reddy Vs. State of Haryana [ AIR 1987 SC 806 ], [3] M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2001 Cri.L.J. 515] : [2001 ALL MR (Cri) 565 (S.C.)], [4] T. Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2004 Cri.L.J. 884], [5] V. Radhakrishna Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2005 Cri.L.J. 1411] : [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1027 (S.C.)], [6] State of A.P. Vs. K. Punardana Rao [2005 Cri.L.J. 419]], [7] N. Naveen Kumar & ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2009(1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 316] : [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 250 (S.C.)]. [8] State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Radha Krishna Murthy [2009(3) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 568] : [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1567], [9] State of Maharashtra Vs. Nayankumar Shivappa Waghmare [2009(2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 401] : [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 741], [10] Girja Prasad (dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of M.P. [2008(1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 152 (S.C.)] : [2007 ALL SCR 2417], [11] Tul Naik Vs. State [2009(4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 546], and [12] State represented by CBI, Hyderabad Vs. G. Prem Raj [2010(1) Mh.LJ. (Cri.) 513] : [2009 ALL SCR 2667]. 13. Defending the appeal, leamed Adv. Mr. Mohit Khajanchi has advanced following submissions:- [a] Presence of some other person, essentially who could be the defence witness, is admitted by PW-l Vilas Tadas in his cross-examination, which reads as follows:- "............................ ..After this conversation when we were about to leave the office the another person appeared at the table and accused asked him to take the seat. " [Quoted from page no.28 of the appeal paper-book]. [b] PW-1 - Vilas Tadas also admits as follows:- ".............................. The conversation about the amount had taken place at the Pan stall and I also handed over the amount at the same Pan stall. ........" [Quoted from page no.28 of the appeal paper-book]. [c] None present at Pan stall is cited and examined as a prosecution witness. [d] It is not that accused has not at all explained his admission that he had received the amount and he is being involved reflects his candidness. Expression of resentment is important than exact language. The language of expression is bound to vary from man to man and place to place. [e] Moreover accused has given explanation through cross-examination of the witnesses and in the statement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code that the amount was received by him on behalf of Shri. Barsagade, the Peon. Expression of resentment is important than exact language. The language of expression is bound to vary from man to man and place to place. [e] Moreover accused has given explanation through cross-examination of the witnesses and in the statement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code that the amount was received by him on behalf of Shri. Barsagade, the Peon. [f] Prosecution has not proved that the accused was the person who was entrusted the duty to perform and carry out the measurement. [g] In absence of proof of the fact that accused was the person entrusted with duty for which he had demanded bribe, the charge is not at al1 proved. [h] Nature of burden on the accused is not of the same degree and intensity which the prosecution shoulders. [i] The accused has to simply suggest probabilities which has been adequately done by the accused. 14. To substantiate his contention, learned Adv. Mr. Khajanchi has placed reliance on fol1owingjudgments. [1] Punjabrao Vs. State of Maharashtra [ (2002)10 SCC 371 ], [2] Jagan M. Seshadri Vs. State of T.N. [ (2002)9 SCC 639 ], [3] T. Subramanian Vs. State of T.N. [ (2006)1 SCC 401 ] : [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 620 (S.C.)], [4] C. M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerla [ (2009)3 SCC 779 ] : [2009 ALL SCR 710], [5] State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal [ (2009)12 SCC 515 ], [6] State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxmanrao Wankhede [ (2009)15 SCC 200 ] : [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 3127 (S.C.)], [7] Banarasi Dass Vs. State of Haryana [ (2010)4 SCC 450 ]. 15. Perused the record and the citations relied upon by the respective parties. 16. It cannot be denied that onerousness of the burden which prosecution shoulders in the trial is made further onerous when the prosecution prefers an appeal against acquittal. What Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in this regard in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal (2009)12 see 515, reads as follows:" 16. It cannot, however, be forgotten that in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court of law. It cannot, however, be forgotten that in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. 17. Though the above principles are well established, a different note was struck in several decisions by various High Courts and even by this Court. It is, therefore, appropriate if we consider some of the leading decisions on the point." 17. The law, namely the nature of burden and degree of proof required to be brought by prosecution for proving the charge, stands on a very higher pedestal, while• the burden on the accused, though of rebuttal, does not have the same degree of proof and strictness. 18. Upon discreet scrutiny of evidence, this Court is of considered view that: [a] Independent witnesses were available who were not traced and cited by the prosecution. [b] The demand of bribe amount is not supported by independent witnesses. [c] There are contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 - Vilas Tadas made before Court and statement given to Police. [d] PW-2 - Raghunath Rathod does not support the version of PW-l - Vilas Tadas. [e] Presence of defence witness on the scene of raid is admitted by PW -1 - Vilas Tadas and there is no point and substance in denying his presence. 19. Preponderance of probability of the defence set up by the accused has been raised to the level of leading to the belief that the defence as suggested exists. 20. Prosecution has to prove the guilt strictly, while accused has to suggest existence of probabilities. 21. The reasoning incorporated in para 29 of the impugned judgment that when legitimate fee was Rs.1500/- and complainant had already paid Rs.1,000/-, why should he choose to pay bribe than paying the same legally, and further that the accused had explained the circumstances in which he had accepted money is not just probable, is rather the highly probable defence. 22. This Court is of considered view that the accused had discharged the burden to the required degree. 23. 22. This Court is of considered view that the accused had discharged the burden to the required degree. 23. In the background of obvious facts, this Court considers it to be an avoidable expense of time and energy to discuss every judgment relied upon by the prosecution as well as by the defence, though this Court has considered all respective citations. The plethora of Judgments cited at bar are, therefore, not discussed. 24. In the given circumstances, this Court concurs with the view taken by the learned Special Judge, and finds that the appeal against acquittal has no merit, and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.