JUDGMENT P.N. Deshmukh, J. 1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 31st of July, 2007 passed by Judge, Special Court (ACB), Nagpur in Special Case No. 22 of 1998, by which appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months. Appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Prosecution case can briefly be stated as follows Appellant/accused on the date of incident was working as Junior Clerk, attached to the court of Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Katol, District Nagpur. Complainant Faridshah Makbulshah was having two criminal cases under the Prohibition Act being Prohibition Case Nos. 197 of 1997 and 1452 of 1996 pending before the said Court. Appellant admittedly being Clerk attached to the Court of Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Katol was looking after the compliance of procedural formalities of the proceedings pending before that Court. According to complainant, he was regularly attending the court proceedings and on each date appellant used to demand Rs. 10/- from him for obtaining further date. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 19th of July, 1997, appellant demanded Rs. 100/- from complainant for getting acquitted from Prohibition Case No. 197 of 1997 and on 21st of July, 1997 he came to be acquitted. However, another Prohibition Case No. 1452 of 1996 was pending and was listed on board on 19th of August, 1997, on which day accused demanded Rs. 100/- from complainant for his acquittal from this case and informed the complainant that he would fix the case on 21st of August, 1997 on which day appellant agreed to accept bribe of Rs. 100/- and informed complainant that he would post said case on 21st of August, 1997. Since complainant was not intending to pay bribe of Rs. 100/-, he visited office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur on 21st of August, 1997 and lodged his report Exh. 17 which was recorded by PW 3 Shri Pawar, Investigating Officer, A.C.B., Nagpur and investigated the same. 3. Since complainant was not intending to pay bribe of Rs. 100/-, he visited office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur on 21st of August, 1997 and lodged his report Exh. 17 which was recorded by PW 3 Shri Pawar, Investigating Officer, A.C.B., Nagpur and investigated the same. 3. On receipt of report, the Investigating Officer arranged for two panch witnesses including PW 2 Pradip Dani who verified the complaint orally, from the complainant and tallied contents thereof and got himself satisfied to be recorded according to the grievance of the complainant. Complainant then produced two currency notes of Rs. 50/- each in denomination. Complainant as well as both the panchas were given demonstration of chemical reaction of phenolphthalein power with solution of Sodium Carbonate from which they learnt that solution of sodium carbonate turns purple if it comes into the contact with the phenolphthalein powder. Phenolphthalein powder was thereafter smeared on both sides of the currency notes. Serial numbers of the currency notes were recorded in the pre-trap panchanama and were kept in the shirt pocket of complainant with direction to not to touch the same and only to pay on demand. Complainant was also instructed to give signal by wiping his face with his right hand palm on payment of bribe money. PW 2 Pradeep was instructed to act as first panch and to remain present with the complainant and to hear conversation whatsoever may take place between the complainant and the appellant. Co-panch was instructed to remain with the members of raiding team. Pre-trap panchanama of above facts was drawn in the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau at Nagpur and was concluded at 1.00 p.m. as per Exh. 24. Thereafter, trap came to be laid in the court of Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Katol where appellant was serving as Junior Clerk at about 3.00 p.m. Complainant as well as PW 2 Pradip contacted appellant when he enquired from complainant about the money and on demand accepted the same. It is the case of prosecution that on getting proposed signal members of the raiding team arrived on the spot and apprehended appellant and bribe amount was recovered from the right side hip pocket of the pant of the appellant. On testing right hand fingers of appellant in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, solution turned purple. It is the case of prosecution that on getting proposed signal members of the raiding team arrived on the spot and apprehended appellant and bribe amount was recovered from the right side hip pocket of the pant of the appellant. On testing right hand fingers of appellant in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, solution turned purple. Similarly, on sprinkling freshly prepared solution on the bribe money, purple coloured dots appeared thereon along with all other currency notes which were found in the right side hip pocket of the pant of the appellant apart from the bribe money. Similarly, inner side hip pocket of the pant of the appellant was also tested in the solution of sodium carbonate, when it turned purple. Thereafter, complainant was called inside the room and his fingers of both the hands were tested in solution of sodium carbonate when right hand fingers gave positive result of traces of phenolphthalein powder as solution of sodium carbonate turned purple. Accordingly, post trap panchanama was drawn as per Exh. 30. 4. PW 3 Prakash Pawar, Investigating Officer then lodged his complaint on the basis of which Crime No. 106 of 1997 for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 came to be registered and was further investigated. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer sent entire relevant documents of the investigation to the competent authority for grant of sanction to prosecute the appellant. On receipt of sanction, chargesheet came to be filed. 5. Charges were framed against the appellant for the offences as aforesaid to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It is the case of appellant, as reveals from his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that Prohibition Case No. 1452 of 1996 was part heard in which short dates were given by the appellant and thus complainant had grudge against him as due to short dates he was apprehending of losing his job being absent and thus having this grudge he was involved in a false case. 6. Prosecution has examined PW 1 Faridshah, complainant, PW 2 Pradip Dani, first panch, Shri Prakash Pawar, Investigating Officer, PW 4 Chinnapa Dhoare, Sanctioning Authority and relied upon documents. Appellant in defence of his case has examined DW 1 Mahendra Gajbhiye, who was present on the spot at the time of incident. 6. Prosecution has examined PW 1 Faridshah, complainant, PW 2 Pradip Dani, first panch, Shri Prakash Pawar, Investigating Officer, PW 4 Chinnapa Dhoare, Sanctioning Authority and relied upon documents. Appellant in defence of his case has examined DW 1 Mahendra Gajbhiye, who was present on the spot at the time of incident. The learned Special Judge on considering evidence convicted the appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 7. Heard Shri Anil S. Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Shri N.R. Rode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 8. To effectively evaluate the submissions advanced by learned Advocates for both the sides, with their assistance, I have scrutinized the evidence and documents on record. 9. PW 1 Faridshah, the complainant, has stated that in the year 1996-97 he was running a Dhaba at village Dongargaon. During that period two prohibition cases were pending against him before the Court at Katol which he was regularly attending. On 19th of July, 1997, appellant demanded Rs. 100/- for dismissing both the cases informing complainant that he will ask concerned Magistrate to dismiss his cases. Accordingly, complainant paid Rs. 100/- to appellant on 19th of July, 1997, for getting his acquittal in one of the prohibition cases. Complainant further stated that his other case was also pending and was fixed in the next month for which appellant demanded Rs. 100/- from complainant for seeking acquittal by convincing the Magistrate and posted the second case on 21st of August, 1997. However, since he had no desire to make payment, he visited office of Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged his report at Exh. 17 on 21st of August, 1997. 10. Complainant has further deposed about his introduction with the panchas and about the demonstration of the effect of phenolphthalein powder with solution of sodium carbonate upon which he learnt that the solution turns purple when it comes in contact with phenolphthalein powder and further stated about application of phenolphthalein powder to the bribe money of Rs. 100/- produced by him and instructions given to him as well as the panchas. 11. On the point of incident, it is stated by the complainant that he along with PW 2 Pradeep went to Katol in the court premises at about 2.00 p.m. At that time the Magistrate was in his Chamber and appellant was present in his chair. 100/- produced by him and instructions given to him as well as the panchas. 11. On the point of incident, it is stated by the complainant that he along with PW 2 Pradeep went to Katol in the court premises at about 2.00 p.m. At that time the Magistrate was in his Chamber and appellant was present in his chair. On seeing complainant, appellant enquired whether he has brought the amount to which complainant replied in the affirmative upon which appellant demanded the same, however, complainant did not immediately pay it and waited for two minutes and thereafter removed the bribe money from the chest pocket of his shirt and tendered it to appellant which he accepted and kept in right side hip pocket of his pant. On giving proposed signal, the members of the raiding team arrived and apprehended the appellant. 12. Evidence of PW 2 Pradeep Dani, who has acted as first panch, reveals that he has stated about his visiting office of Anti Corruption Bureau along with co-panch and about being introduced to complainant and his verifying the complaint (Exh. 17) and further stated about demonstration and instructions given to him and complainant as per pre-trap panchanama (Exh. 24). On the point of incident it is stated that he along with complainant went to the court and met the appellant who enquired from the complainant as to why he was late to which complainant replied that he was late due to rains and thereafter enquired if complainant has brought money to which complainant replied in the affirmative and took out amount from his pocket and tendered it to the appellant which he accepted and kept in right side hip pocket of his pant. It is further stated that thereafter appellant took the file to the Chamber of Presiding Officer and returned back without papers and thereafter complainant gave the signal. When the evidence of complainant is considered together with the evidence of this independent witness, though this piece of evidence appears to be corroborating to each other to material extent and evidence of complainant though establish demand on the part of appellant, PW 2 Pradeep is silent on this material aspect as he has stated that on appellant's enquiring from complainant about amount, complainant took out the amount from his pocket and paid to the appellant. 13. 13. In the light of above evidence, it is necessary to consider whether this would be sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the charges framed against him. For reaching to any conclusion on this point, I find it necessary to scrutinize rest of the evidence on record by keeping in mind the probable case of appellant of his false implication, specifically with reference to his case that complainant was irritated due to short dates given by the appellant in the prohibition cases which were handled by the appellant. With reference to above aspect, complainant in the cross-examination in clear terms has admitted that he had a grievance against the appellant as he was giving short dates to complainant due to which he has lost his employment in the Beer Bar of Saoji at Butibori and has further admitted that though appellant was initially granting longer dates, on making demand of bribe he was threatening to give short dates. Moreover, evidence of complainant also does not find corroborating to the contents of his report (Exh. 17) when complainant denied to have stated as per portion 'A' in his complaint, denying that on 21st of July, 1997 he was produced by the appellant before the court. His evidence also do not corroborate with the contents of his report wherein it is stated that he was not paying Rs. 10/- to appellant on each date and thus denied that portion 'B' of his complaint is not correct. He has also denied portion 'C' of the complaint that judgment in his prohibition case was delivered on 19th of July, 1997 and not on 21st of July, 1997. 14. In view of above inconsistent evidence of complainant, same do not inspire confidence, more particularly in view of the case of appellant of his false implication as complainant had a grudge against him for giving short dates in prohibition cases pending against him. As such before acting upon the evidence of complainant it is necessary to note that such type of evidence does not inspire confidence as it is well settled that where witness makes two inconsistent statements in his evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness. 15. 15. Moreover, according to the evidence of complainant, on 19th of July, 1997 when he attended the court to attend the case, appellant demanded him Rs. 100/- and accordingly by arranging said amount he paid Rs. 100/- to the appellant on that day. In the light of his evidence, as stated aforesaid, when the charge (Exh. 43) is perused what was read over and explained to appellant was that on 19th of August, 1997 when complainant visited court at Katol, demand was made for getting favorable decision. It is further explained by way of charge to appellant that during the period from 19th of July, 1997 to 21st of August, 1997 appellant showed favour in the exercise of his official function by rendering assistance to complainant to secure his acquittal in prohibition case No. 1452 of 1996 and on 21st of August, 1997 demanded and accepted Rs. 100/- from complainant. In view of above charges, as reveal on record, and on perusal of daily board (Exh. 13) on record, prohibition case No. 197 of 1997 was shown on board on 19th of July, 1997 and was adjourned to 21st of July, 1997 and on that day appellant was acquitted. Thus, it appears that as complainant was already acquitted in Prohibition Case No. 197 of 1997 on 21st July, 1997 there was no reason for showing any favour by appellant to complainant for getting favourable decision in Criminal Case No. 197 of 1997. In that view of the matter, case of prosecution with reference to first demand dated 19th of August, 1997 does not appear to be reliable. On the contrary, it appears that defective charge was framed against the appellant as on 21st of July, 1997 complainant was already acquitted from criminal Case No. 197 of 1997. 16. In the background of above, Shri Anil S. Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision in the case of Avinash Sitaram Garware vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 ALL MR (Cri.) 15 according to which it is held that once the prior demand is not proved, rest of the prosecution case regarding money allegedly demanded by the appellant is concerned will have to be read with great caution and circumspection. In view of above, when further evidence of complainant is scrutinized with reference to the second demand dated 21st of August, 1997, it is stated by complainant that after his first prohibition case came to be ended in acquittal, appellant told him to come with Rs. 100/- in second prohibition case and posted second prohibition case on 21st of August, 1997. However, since he did not intend to pay the bribe he lodged report Exh. 17. In the light of this specific evidence of complainant, on perusal of Exh. 27, which is Daily Board of concerned court of Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Katol dated 21st of August, 1997, it reveals that Prohibition Case No. 1452 of 1996 against the complainant was listed on that day and was part heard for recording evidence and was on the same day adjourned to 30th of December, 1997. In view of Daily Board (Exh. 27), it is difficult to rely upon the evidence of complainant that on 21st of August, 1997 appellant demanded and agreed to accept Rs. 100/- for acquitting complainant from Prohibition Case No. 1452 of 1996, as from Exh. 27 it is established that on that day said case was adjourned to 30th of December, 1997 and was part heard. In that view of the matter, the case of prosecution fails on the ground of alleged second demand also. Even otherwise, it is material to note that appellant admittedly being Clerk attached to particular court is no way empowered to secure acquittal of appellant in any case. 17. PW 3 Prakash, Dy. S.P., Investigating Officer, has admitted that appellant being clerk attached to the Court was not having power to dismiss the criminal case or to acquit the appellant and has further admitted to have not inspected and verified whether. Prohibition Case No. 197 of 1997 was already ended in acquittal on 19th of July, 1997 on merits and has further admitted that there is no evidence to establish that appellant for acquittal of complainant in Prohibition Case No. 197 of 1997 had shown any kind of favour. It is further admitted by the Investigating Officer that except for the bare complaint of PW 1 Faridshah, there is no other evidence to show that appellant had extended any kind of help to complainant for his acquittal in Prohibition Case No. 1456 of 1996. 18. It is further admitted by the Investigating Officer that except for the bare complaint of PW 1 Faridshah, there is no other evidence to show that appellant had extended any kind of help to complainant for his acquittal in Prohibition Case No. 1456 of 1996. 18. In the background of above discussed evidence and on considering evidence of PW 4 - Chinnapa Dhopare, Sanctioning Authority, prosecution case is further found to be doubtful, as according to PW 4, he has accorded sanction as he prima facie came to the conclusion that there exists case for grant of sanction to prosecute appellant and accordingly accorded sanction (Exh. 42). In the cross examination, this witness has admitted that there is no mention in the bottom portion of sanction order as to for what purpose money was demanded. He further admits that date as 21st of September, 1997 is wrongly mentioned in sanction order instead of 21st of August, 1997 and admits that he had not gone through the papers in Criminal Case Nos. 1452 of 1996 or 197 of 1997 and as such further admits that he is unaware if on 21st of August, 1997 Criminal Case No. 1452 of 1996 was fixed for evidence of Investigating Officer. He also admits that Clerk has no power to acquit or to discharge the appellant and as per practice the only dates are given by the Clerk. 19. In view of above evidence of Sanctioning Authority, it is seen that he has acted in a mechanical way without application of mind. By now, it is well settled law that it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid Sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that the case for Sanction has been made out constituting the offence. The Authority based on the facts placed before it has to be satisfied and then has to arrive to its conclusion whether case is made out for grant of sanction or not. In the instant case, it appears that the Sanctioning Authority presuming that appellant must have posed complainant to do his work, accorded sanction and therefore, the case since appears to have been instituted without proper Sanction, it must fail as this is a manifest defect in the case of prosecution thereby rendering entire proceedings into void ab initio. In the instant case, it appears that the Sanctioning Authority presuming that appellant must have posed complainant to do his work, accorded sanction and therefore, the case since appears to have been instituted without proper Sanction, it must fail as this is a manifest defect in the case of prosecution thereby rendering entire proceedings into void ab initio. It is to be noted that the court has to see whether or not the Sanctioning Authority was aware of the facts constituting the offence and applied its mind for the same. In that view of the matter, prosecution case fails on this count also. 20. Moreover, it is also found that though it is the case of prosecution, as reveals from the evidence of PW 1 complainant Faridshah as well as PW 2 Pradip Dani, first panch, that during the course of personal search of appellant, apart from bribe amount of Rs. 100/-, other currency notes to the extent of Rs. 287/- was recovered from right side hip pocket of his pant, an amount of Rs. 10/- only appears to have seized and sealed in a separate envelope. According to the contents of post trap panchanama as well as evidence of PW 2 Pradip Dani, solution of sodium carbonate was sprinkled on all the currency notes including bribe money alleged to have been recovered from the hip pocket of the appellant. No any explanation is put forth by the prosecution as to why all the currency notes were not forwarded for its analysis to Chemical Analyzer. From the requisition letter to Chemical Analyser on record at Exh. 36 it appears that apart from the solution, only one currency note in the domination of Rs. 10/- is forwarded though, as stated above, apart from this note, an amount of Rs. 287/- as well as alleged bribe money of Rs. 100/- consisting two notes of Rs. 50/- each in denomination were recovered from the pant pocket of the appellant, while according to C.A. report (Exh. 38) even on said currency note of Rs. 10/- only phenolphthalein power is stated to be recovered and there is no evidence of traces of sodium carbonate solution. This aspect since is not clarified by the prosecution, also raises doubt in its case. 21. 38) even on said currency note of Rs. 10/- only phenolphthalein power is stated to be recovered and there is no evidence of traces of sodium carbonate solution. This aspect since is not clarified by the prosecution, also raises doubt in its case. 21. It has come in the evidence of PW 3 Prakash Pawar Investigating Officer, that at the time of incident there were other persons present in the Court hall namely; Sanjay Taiwade, Mahendra Gajbhiye, Ramesh Shendekar and Vinod Tawane, and they were asked by the Investigating Officer to not to leave from the place. Admittedly, neither of them has been examined by the prosecution as an independent witness, while appellant has examined Mahendra Gajbhiye as his defence witness who has stated to be acquainted with the complainant being a ration card holder while said witness has a Fair Price Shop and also states to know the appellant who was working in the court at Katol. He has stated that with reference to matrimonial proceedings of his sister he was present in the concerned court on 21st August, 1997 to know further date in his sister's proceedings and for that purpose had met the appellant at 2.30 p.m. who directed him to wait for some time. As such presence of this witness is natural and in fact goes unchallenged. On the contrary, the Investigating Officer has admitted that this witness was present in the court at the time of trap along with other persons. In that view of the matter, there is nothing to disbelieve the presence of this witness in the Court hall at the time of trap. DW 1 Mahendra further stated that while he was present in the court hall, complainant arrived and made enquiry about his case with the appellant who informed him that his case was fixed for evidence and was proceeding to the Chamber of the concerned Magistrate along with record when complainant thrusted something in the right side hip pocket of the pant, and the appellant went inside the Chamber and returned back after 10 to 15 minutes and occupied his chair when 4-5 persons entered into court hall and apprehended him. Nothing material is elicited in the cross-examination of this witness to disbelieve him, while his presence on the spot as stated earlier appears to be natural, nor this witness can said to have any interest in the appellant. Nothing material is elicited in the cross-examination of this witness to disbelieve him, while his presence on the spot as stated earlier appears to be natural, nor this witness can said to have any interest in the appellant. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor with reference to the facts involved in the appeal has relied upon the ratio in the case of Narendra Champaklal Trivedi vs. State of Gujrat, (2012) 7 SCC 80 : 2012 ALL MR (Cri.) 2426 (SC) and has submitted that since the bribe money is recovered from the person of accused, presumption as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act needs to be raised which appellant has failed to rebut and thus submitted that appeal needs to be dismissed. However, arguments advanced on behalf of prosecution are not convincing at all in view of the settled legal principle that mere recovery of bribe money from the possession of appellant is not sufficient to constitute the offence, in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of money as illegal gratification which must be established by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then presumption can be raised. In fact, the explanation whatsoever may be offered by the appellant by way of rebuttal, is necessary to be considered by the Court on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. In the authorities cited supra relied by prosecution, presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruptions Act was raised as in that case demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and recovery of tainted money from the possession of appellant was established while appellant failed to rebut the presumption drawn against him. Unlike the appeal in hand, where evidence led by prosecution right from its inception, as reveals from the charge and evidence of complainant, does not inspire confidence as in Prohibition Case No. 197 of 1997 complainant appears to have been acquitted prior to the date of alleged demand while Prohibition Case No. 1452 of 1996 is found to have adjourned to 30th of December, 1997 and as such the case of prosecution of appellant's demanding Rs. 100/- on 21st of August, 1997 for seeking acquittal of complainant in this case does not inspire confidence. 100/- on 21st of August, 1997 for seeking acquittal of complainant in this case does not inspire confidence. In that view of the matter, the appeal is liable to be allowed as prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, while the probable case set out on behalf of appellant appears to be convincing. In the result, appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, the following order. Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 31st of July, 2007, passed in Special Case No. 22 of 1998 by Special Court (CBI), Nagpur, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said offences. Bail bonds of the appellant stands cancelled. Fine amount, if any paid by the appellant, be refunded to him. Appeal allowed.