JUDGMENT : By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, dated 1st of June, 2002 in Special Case No. 6 of 1992 convicting appellant for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for four months and for the offence punishable under section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, appellant is sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer R.I. for four months. 2. Prosecution case can briefly be stated as follows : At the time of incident, appellant was working as Upper Division Clerk in the office of Income Tax, Ward II, Akola and as such was required to process the income tax return. PW 1, the complainant, and his brother PW 3 Manoj were having their ready made garments shop styled as "Metro Mens Collection" and "Metro Dressers' both situated at Akola. They were filing income tax returns through PW 4 Sakharam Kulkarni, their Advocate. The income tax returns for the year 1987-89 was filed on 29-11-1989 and the required income tax was paid. On 1-6-1990, PW 4 Advocate Sakharam Kulkarni informed complainant that appellant has called him on 4-6-1990. Accordingly, complainant met appellant who informed the complainant that his case would go for special scrutiny and in that case complainant may face trouble by paying more income tax and thus said that if he wanted to avoid the same, he should pay appellant Rs. 7000/- and appellant would give him assessment order and refund voucher. The amount so demanded was negotiated to Rs. 4000/- and was agreed to be paid on 5-6-1990. On this day, appellant visited the shop of complainant and gave him assessment order dated 23-5-1990 and refund voucher dated 31-5-1990 and had obtained acknowledgment (Exh.60). At the same time, appellant demanded Rs. The amount so demanded was negotiated to Rs. 4000/- and was agreed to be paid on 5-6-1990. On this day, appellant visited the shop of complainant and gave him assessment order dated 23-5-1990 and refund voucher dated 31-5-1990 and had obtained acknowledgment (Exh.60). At the same time, appellant demanded Rs. 4000/- as agreed, upon which the complainant informed that he would arrange for same by evening and informed the appellant to come to his 'Metro Dresses' shop by 6 to 7 p.m. 3. According to prosecution, as complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he lodged report with Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Akola vide Exh.61. Accordingly, the authorities of A.C.B., Akola arranged for two panch witnesses being PW 2 Sudhakar Khot and one Laxman Bhagat and then gave demonstration to complainant and panchas of effect of phenolphthalein powder with solution of Sodium Carbonate, by which they learnt that when said powder comes in contact with above stated solution, it changes its colour to violate. On applying Phenolphthalein powder to the bribe amount of Rs. 4000/-, necessary instructions were given to complainant as well as to PW 2 Sudhakar to accompany the complainant and to Laxman Bhagat to accompany the raiding team and trap came to be laid at the shop of complainant. Before proceeding to the spot, pre-trap panchanama came to be prepared (Exh.64). 4. According to the prosecution, on reaching to his shop, complainant Mukesh sat on the counter while PW 2 Sudhakar was in shop at a distance of 2 to 3 ft. from the complainant, watching the clothes. About half an hour thereafter, the appellant arrived in the shop and told complainant that his work was over and he should give him Rs. 4000/-, as agreed, saying that he would manage other things and the complainant should not worry. Upon which, complainant took out Rs. 4000/- from his right side pant pocket by his right hand and gave it to the appellant which he accepted and on counting by both of his hands, kept in his left side shirt pocket. On complainant's giving the proposed signal, raiding team officials arrived in the shop and apprehended the appellant. PW 6 Dashrat Gawande, P.I., dipped the fingers of appellant in the solution of sodium Carbonate which turned into violate colour. The amount of Rs. 4000/- was recovered from the shirt pocket of appellant. On complainant's giving the proposed signal, raiding team officials arrived in the shop and apprehended the appellant. PW 6 Dashrat Gawande, P.I., dipped the fingers of appellant in the solution of sodium Carbonate which turned into violate colour. The amount of Rs. 4000/- was recovered from the shirt pocket of appellant. Similarly, when complainant's fingers were treated with sodium carbonate solution, the solution turned in to violate colour. Panchanama of these facts was done vide Exh.164. 5. PW 6 Gawande, P.I., forwarded report to the City Kotwali Police Station for registering an offence. The FIR is at Exh.166. During the course of investigation, he deposited the Muddemal in City Kotwali Police Station, Akola and forwarded bottle containing sodium carbonate liquid for analysis. He then recorded statements of witnesses and forwarded the same to Central Bureau of Investigation, Mumbai, as appellant was Central Government employee. PW 7 Raman Rajaram Tyagi, Police Inspector, C.B.I., Anti Corruption, Bombay registered an offence vide Crime No. 47 of 1990. On finding that prima facie case exists against the appellant, he forwarded the investigation papers to PW 8 Shivakant Jaha, Commissioner of Income Tax for according sanction to prosecute the appellant which was accorded as per Exh.180. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before the Special Court. 6. Charge was framed against appellant for the offences punishable under section 7, 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of appellant is that he had never met the complainant nor had demanded any bribe. It is his specific case that his father was running a tailoring shop styled as 'Gidwani Tailor' at Akola where complainant used to send ready made clothes of his shop for alteration purpose against which amount of Rs. 7000/- was to be paid by the complainant and after the death of appellant's father appellant was demanding said amount from the complainant who was avoiding to pay the same in spite of appellant's visiting him on 5 to 6 occasions. According to the appellant, due to intervention of PW 4 Advocate Kulkarni complainant agreed to make payment of Rs. 4000/- against Rs. 7000/- and as such on the day of incident when he visited the shop of complainant and accepted the said amount, he was falsely apprehended. 7. According to the appellant, due to intervention of PW 4 Advocate Kulkarni complainant agreed to make payment of Rs. 4000/- against Rs. 7000/- and as such on the day of incident when he visited the shop of complainant and accepted the said amount, he was falsely apprehended. 7. On considering the evidence, learned Trial Court convicted appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 8. Heard Smt. S .P. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. T. H. Udeshi, learned APP for the State. To effectively evaluate the submissions advanced by learned Advocates for both the sides, I have scrutinized the evidence with their assistance. 9. PW 1 complainant, Mukesh has stated that he along with his brother PW 3 Manoj are looking after the affairs of two ready made garments shops at Akola of which income tax work is looked after by PW 4 Advocate Kulkarni. On 1-6-1990, Advocate Kulkarni informed him that appellant had called him to meet. Accordingly, on 4-6-1990 he met appellant and appellant told that if his income tax return is sent for scrutiny, he may face trouble and informed that if he pays him Rs. 7000/-, he will issue the necessary orders. According to complainant, said amount was, however, negotiated to Rs. 4000/- and agreed to be paid on 5-6-1990. In pursuance to the talks as above, it is further stated by the complainant that on 5-6-1990 appellant visited to his shop at 11 a.m. and gave the assessment order and refund voucher and had obtained his acknowledgment vide Exh.60 and thereafter demanded Rs. 4000/- as agreed, upon which complainant informed that he had not arranged for the same and would pay on the same day by 5 to 6 p.m. at his 'Metro Collection' shop, upon which the appellant agreed to come to collect the same. Complainant further stated that he then visited the office of A.C.B., Akola and lodged his report at Exh.61. Complainant thereafter further stated about the demonstration given to him and panchas about effect of Phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution and necessary instructions, etc. On the point of incident, he has further stated that he along with PW 2 Sudhakar, the panch, were present in the shop when appellant arrived within half an hour and informed the complainant that the work was over and he should pay him Rs. 4000/- as agreed. On the point of incident, he has further stated that he along with PW 2 Sudhakar, the panch, were present in the shop when appellant arrived within half an hour and informed the complainant that the work was over and he should pay him Rs. 4000/- as agreed. Appellant further said that he would manage by saying, 'Saltaloonga' and the complainant should not worry, upon which the complainant paid Rs. 4000/- which he counted and kept in his shirt's pocket. Immediately thereafter, members of the raiding team arrived and apprehended the appellant. 10. It has come in his cross-examination that both the shops of complainant are situated nearby and the income tax returns of his business are filed by PW 4 Advocate Kulkarni since last ten years. He has admitted that the income tax return for the period 1987-89 was filed on 29-11-1989 of which he had not received any notice and was not aware whether any notice in this respect was received by his Advocate. Complainant admitted that after he was informed by Advocate Kulkarni to meet the appellant, he did not make any enquiry as to for what purpose he was called and has admitted that he learnt about the decision of income tax returns when he was supplied with the assessment order dated 23-5-1990, on 5-6-1990. Complainant has thus admitted that he was aware that his income tax return was accepted on that day i.e. on 23-5-1990 and further admitted that refund order was also issued dated 31-5-1990. In view of admission of complainant as stated above, there appears much force when it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that no work was left with the appellant or with the office of income tax, as income tax return of complainant was filed on 29-11-1989, the assessment order was already issued on 23-5-1990 while the refund order was issued on 31-5-1990. In that view of the matter, I find substance when it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that he had never met the complainant on 4-6-1990 and demanded bribe of Rs. 4000/- saying that if complainant's income tax return comes into scrutiny, he may face trouble and may be required to pay additional income tax. 11. In that view of the matter, I find substance when it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that he had never met the complainant on 4-6-1990 and demanded bribe of Rs. 4000/- saying that if complainant's income tax return comes into scrutiny, he may face trouble and may be required to pay additional income tax. 11. Moreover, evidence of complainant on the material aspect of demand and acceptance of bribe money involved in this appeal also do not find convincing, as he has admitted that though he had mentioned in his statement recorded by police that appellant said that his work was over and that he should pay Rs. 4000/- as agreed, same do not find place in his statement for which he is unable to give any reason. Above omission on the part of complainant thus creates reasonable doubt in his evidence that appellant on arriving in his shop on 5-6-1990 had said to complainant that his work was over and demanded Rs. 4000/- as agreed. The case of prosecution also creates reasonable doubt establishing involvement of appellant in this case as, admittedly, complainant had received the copy of assessment order and refund voucher on 5-6-1990 itself at 12.15 noon from the appellant. According to the complainant, thereafter at about 1 p.m. he visited office of A.C.B., Akola and lodged his report where he was present till 6 p.m. where panchanama was drawn and trap was laid. Though complainant had denied that he knows father of the appellant who was running tailoring shop, and that alteration work from complainant's shop was provided to the father of the appellant and has also denied that any amount was due to be paid by the complainant to the father of appellant for carrying out alteration work, it is found that the case as suggested above has been denied by the complainant as he wanted to falsely implicate the appellant probably, since appellant was insisting complainant for payment of due amount. Above fact is found substantiated from further evidence of complainant when he has admitted that on making payment of Rs. 4000/- he informed appellant that he should count money. Above fact is found substantiated from further evidence of complainant when he has admitted that on making payment of Rs. 4000/- he informed appellant that he should count money. He further admitted that in the office of A.C.B., no such instructions were given to him to inform appellant to count the money but according to his evidence he said so, so that the Phenolphthalein powder should go on the hands of appellant. Above piece of evidence further establishes the intention of complainant to falsely implicate the appellant when he would arrive to his shop to collect the amount due towards his father. 12. Evidence of PW 3 Manoj, brother of complainant, corroborates the complainant on the aspect of appellant visiting their shop on 5-6-1990 at 12.30 noon and supplying the income tax return order and refund voucher. He has also stated about complainant's issuing acknowledgment vide Exh.60 on receiving said documents. Evidence of this witness thus also substantiates the case of appellant establishing that no work was left with him, as according to the income tax order, it is dated 23-5-1990 while refund order is dated 31-5-1990. In the circumstances, though it has further come in the evidence of PW 3 Manoj that on providing these documents appellant demanded money from complainant, said evidence does not inspire confidence, while I find much substance when it is suggested to this witness that no such demand was made though said suggestion is denied by him, in view of the specific case of appellant that on 5-6-1990 he was to visit the shop of complainant for collecting the due amount. 13. In the background of evidence of complainant when evidence of PW 2, panch, who had accompanied him in the shop, is perused, it reveals that after he attended the office of A.C.B. along with one Bhagat at 2 p.m., he was introduced to complainant and they were given demonstration of Phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution and after giving necessary instructions to complainant and panchas the trap came to be laid. On the point of incident, he stated that after reaching the shop of complainant he was seeing the clothes and in the meantime the appellant arrived and demanded money saying that he would manage, upon which complainant paid him currency notes by removing from right side pocket of his pant and thereafter complainant gave a proposed signal upon which the members of the raiding team arrived and apprehended the appellant. When evidence of said independent witness is considered, particularly on the point of demand and acceptance, he has admitted that till the appellant arrived at the spot, he was not aware who he was, and it is only when he heard the talk between complainant and appellant in a loud voice, he came to know about the appellant. Evidence of said panch is totally silent about the conversation on the point of demand and acceptance as what has come in his evidence is, complainant said to the appellant to count the notes if it was Rs. 4000/- or Rs. 5000/- except for this his evidence is totally silent. In view of above evidence, it is found that said witness has spoken only with reference to complainant's directing the appellant to count the notes and his evidence is totally silent on the point of demand and acceptance. On the contrary, it has come in his evidence that the appellant and complainant were talking in a low voice till the authorities of A.C.B. arrived in the shop. In that view of the matter, prosecution cannot said to have brought substantiative evidence on record to corroborate complainant's version. It is well settled that where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses. 14. PW 4 Sakharam Kulkarni, Advocate, had stated that he is looking after the income tax work of complainant's firm by filing returns, etc. 14. PW 4 Sakharam Kulkarni, Advocate, had stated that he is looking after the income tax work of complainant's firm by filing returns, etc. and, totally in contrast to the evidence of complainant, has stated that prior to 4-6-1990 complainant visited him and informed that appellant was calling him in the office, upon which he said that as he had no work in Income Tax Office for two days, he would be going on 4-6-1990 and thus the complainant should accompany him on that day to meet the appellant while, according to the complainant's evidence, on 1-6-1990 it is PW 4 Kulkarni Advocate who gave him massage that appellant has called him to meet. From this piece of evidence again it can reasonably held that it is complainant who wanted to meet the appellant to involve him in a false case as appellant wanted to recover due amount from the complainant. PW 4 Kulkarni further stated that accordingly on 4-6-1990 he along with complainant went to Income Tax Officer when complainant met appellant who was talking about money and he left to do his work. It has further come in his evidence that if the income tax return is to be scrutinized, the Income Tax Office has to issue notice under the relevant provisions of Income Tax Act within six months from the date of filing of returns. It has also come in the evidence of Advocate Kulkarni that he had filed income tax return in respect of complainant's establishment on 29-11-1989. It is material to note that the incident involved in this case is dated 5-6-1990, the assessment order is dated 23-5-1990 and refund voucher is dated 30-5-1990 which established that the income tax returns of complainant were not to be scrutinized and in fact refund order was already issued on 30-5-1990 which fact shows that there was no reason for appellant to demand money. In fact, it has further come in the evidence of PW 4 Kulkarni that on 1-6-1990 complainant told him that he had met appellant on 5 or 6 occasions, however, he had not asked him as to what was the talk which took place between them. In fact, it has further come in the evidence of PW 4 Kulkarni that on 1-6-1990 complainant told him that he had met appellant on 5 or 6 occasions, however, he had not asked him as to what was the talk which took place between them. No explanation is put forth by prosecution for appellant's meeting the complainant on so many occasions prior to 1-6-1990 and in the absence of any such explanation, thus, the case set out on behalf of appellant appears to be more probable that appellant during this period contacted the complainant for receiving the due amount. 15. Evidence of PW 5 Fakirchand Ambadas Ambekar when perused it reveals that at the time of incident he was working as a Income Tax Officer at Akola and was required to assess the income tax returns while the appellant was working as Upper Division Clerk and was assigned with job to process the return by placing the same along with his report before the Income Tax Officer which he used to verify and to decide if it was suitable for placing for scrutiny or otherwise. PW 5 Ambekar stated that Exh.162 is Income Tax return of complainant in a pro forma bearing his signature at Exh.163 and has stated that since he has signed it, complainant's case was not referred for scrutiny. He has also stated that refund order (Exh.65) was also sent to complainant. Evidence of this officer also established fact that nothing was left with the office of income tax or with the appellant with regard to complainant's income tax return for the year 1988-89 and thus, it is difficult to believe that appellant on the false pretext of not sending the case of complainant for scrutiny had demanded bribe, more particularly when the assessment order as well as refund order was admittedly received by the complainant prior to the incident. Above case, as set out on behalf of appellant, is found further substantiated when PW 5 Ambekar admitted that as per Exh.162, which is return filed by complainant dated 29-11-1990, was accepted on 23-5-1990 and thereafter refund voucher was issued on 31-5-1990. 16. Above case, as set out on behalf of appellant, is found further substantiated when PW 5 Ambekar admitted that as per Exh.162, which is return filed by complainant dated 29-11-1990, was accepted on 23-5-1990 and thereafter refund voucher was issued on 31-5-1990. 16. In view of specific defence of appellant as already stated above and to substantiate the same, the appellant has examined D.W.1 Advocate Narayan Lokras who was knowing the complainant as at the material time PW 4 Advocate Kulkarni was working with him and as such the complainant's income tax returns were filed through him. He has stated that on 2-6-1990 complainant came to his office where PW 4 Kulkarni, DW 3 Warulkar were present and there was a talk that father of complainant was to receive approximately Rs. 7000/- from complainant and accordingly this witness informed complainant that he should make said payment, upon which complainant said that he would make the payment as per his convenience as that much amount was not with him and at the same time requested PW 4 Kulkarni to settle the amount to a reasonable figure. Advocate Lokras further stated that the complainant had not denied said fact and in his presence agreed to make payment of Rs. 5000/- to be paid as per his convenience. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of this witness which, as such, established the probable case of appellant. In fact, it has come in his cross-examination that he has not advised the appellant to issue any legal notice to complainant having friendly relations and particularly when complainant admitted the liability. It has further come in his cross-examination that prior to said meeting there were 2 - 3 meetings held amongst them which were arranged by him at the instance of appellant who insisted to call at his (DW 1's) office. Evidence of defence witness DW 2 Rampher Pohar also established fact of assessment order and refund voucher in respect of income tax return filed by complainant having been completed much prior to the incident, while DW 3 Warulkar further established the case of appellant when he has stated that he knows the appellant as he too was working in the office of income tax in the same capacity of Upper Division Clerk as that of appellant, whose father was a tailor having shop styled as 'Gidwani Tailor' at Akola. He further stated that complainant had to pay Rs. 7000/- to the father of appellant and therefore after the death of his father this witness had accompanied appellant to the complainant and demanded Rs. 7000/- with reference to the tailoring charges which was avoided to be paid by the complainant. He further stated that he had accompanied appellant to the complainant on 5 to 6 occasions and thereafter had decided to inform complainant through his Advocates DW 1 Lokras and PW 4 Kulkarni. It has further come in his evidence that on 2-6-1990 he accompanied appellant to the office of PW 4 Kulkarni where complainant was called and on that day with regard to the amount of Rs. 7000/-, which was due, it was agreed that the complainant should pay Rs. 4000/- to the appellant. As such from his evidence it reveals that amount of Rs. 7000/-, which was due, was agreed to be paid by the complainant to the appellant which was negotiated to Rs. 4000/-. Above stated evidence also further establishes the case of accused of his false implication. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of this witness creating any doubt. On the contrary, it is denied that he has not accompanied appellant to meet the complainant in the office of Advocate Lokras. It is also denied that he is deposing in favour of appellant being his friend. 17. Having considered above discussed evidence, appellant can said to have established his case as has been set out in his statement recorded under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure by way of reply to question Nos.51, 93, as well as, written statement filed in reply to question No. 96 wherein it is the specific case of appellant that during life time his father, he owed Rs. 7000/- from the complainant which fact was informed to him and note to that effect was also taken by him in his note book and thus appellant time and again was contacting complainant for recovery of said amount. However, complainant was avoiding to make said payment. 7000/- from the complainant which fact was informed to him and note to that effect was also taken by him in his note book and thus appellant time and again was contacting complainant for recovery of said amount. However, complainant was avoiding to make said payment. He has further stated that prior to incident on 1-6-1990 with the assistance of his Advocates Shri Kulkarni and Shri Lokras, meeting was held between him and complainant in the presence of both his Advocates, who were looking after his income tax work, who had informed complainant, that amount should be paid to appellant, upon which complainant agreed to make payment of Rs. 4000/- and thus as per the message from complainant he visited his shop on 5-6-1990 for collecting his due and came to be apprehended on the basis of a false report lodged by complainant. 18. Learned APP, in the background of facts involved in the appeal, has relied upon the case of Ramesh Kumar Gupta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1995 Crii.L.J.3656. However law relied cannot be made applicable having distinguishing facts, as in that case the Police Inspector who was apprehended for having accepting bribe, gave bare denial that he had no knowledge of notes, which was held to be without substance observing that there can be no question of false implication as it was proved that it was only by way of harassment to the complainant made by appellant by demand, complainant was compelled to borrow the amount for making payment. Moreover, in that case there was sufficient corroboration to the evidence of complainant by surrounding circumstances, unlike the appeal on hand where there is no corroboration to the complainant's evidence even from the evidence of PW 2, panch, on the material aspect of demand and acceptance. 19. Prosecution has also relied on the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. V. Vasudeva Rao reported in AIR 2004 SC 960 , according to which presumption is required to be drawn and it is to be understood as in terrorem i.e. having some import of compulsion. However, said authority also cannot be made applicable to the instant appeal in absence of proof that appellant had accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. In the absence of above necessary evidence, no presumption can be raised. 20. However, said authority also cannot be made applicable to the instant appeal in absence of proof that appellant had accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. In the absence of above necessary evidence, no presumption can be raised. 20. On the contrary, law relied on behalf of the appellant in the case of Punjabrao vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2002)10 SCC 371 can be applied in the instant case wherein it is observed that if the explanation offered by the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is found to be reasonable, then it cannot be thrown away merely on the ground that he did not offer the said explanation at the time when the amount was seized. For the reasons stated herein above, as well as on facts, explanation offered by appellant involved in this appeal appears to be probable, reasonable and acceptable. 21. With reference to presumption as contemplated under section 20 of the Act, learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede reported in (2009) 15 SCC 200 wherein para No. 16 of the judgment it is laid down that : "16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence viz. demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in the entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-a-vis the standard of burden of proof on the presumption would differ. Before, however, the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Even while invoking the provisions of section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt." 22. Even while invoking the provisions of section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt." 22. In the circumstance and having considering the evidence of complainant PW 1 Mukesh Karia and PW 2 - Sudhakar Khot since is at variance in respect of demand and acceptance, according to me, the appellant would be entitled for benefit of doubt as mere recovery of the tainted currency notes by itself would not raise any presumption against the appellant/accused, nor this fact is sufficient to prove the offence against the appellant. A reference at this stage may usefully be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Banarasi Dass vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC 1589 : 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 1608 (S.C.). The Supreme Court in the said judgment has held that recovery of the tainted notes divorced from the evidence in respect of demand and acceptance would not amount to establishing the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 23. Thus, in view of above discussed evidence and law, prosecution cannot said to have established involvement of appellant for having demanded and accepted the bribe amount within the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act for which he was charged, beyond reasonable doubt, while the case set out on behalf of appellant appears to be more probable. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. 24. At this stage, I must record appreciation for Mrs. S. P. Kulkarni, Advocate, who was appointed to represent the appellant. I found that she had meticulously prepared the matter and she has very ably argued the appeal. As Mrs. Kulkarni is an appointed Advocate, I quantify legal fees to be paid to her for this appeal by the High Court Legal Services Committee at Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only). 25. Accordingly, following order is passed. Criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under section 7, 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences with which he was charged and convicted. 25. Accordingly, following order is passed. Criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under section 7, 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences with which he was charged and convicted. Fine, if any, paid by the appellant be refunded to him. His bail bond stands cancelled. Fees to be paid to the learned counsel appointed for the appellant is quantified at Rs. 5000/-.