to respondent/accused No.2 by the complainant. According to the complainant, the currency notes of Rs.5,500/- with anthracene powder thereon were initially kept in the envelope and the envelope was given to accused No.2. Accused No.2 took out the money and counted the notes by his hand. So far as substantive evidence of panch witness is concerned, he does not speak of the envelope. So also during the said trap, the said envelope was not seized and not brought before the Court during the trial. The factual position remains that according to the case of prosecution the money was handed over to accused No.2 who was then present in the office of accused No.1. Apparently, accused No.2 being a licencee to do the work of inspection of weights and measurement and to do effective stamping etc, it is defence of accused No.2 that he has to charge for the work assigned to him regarding the said measurement. So far as involvement of accused No.1 is concerned, initial demand of Rs.6,000/- and further reduction brought down to Rs.5,500/- is not established. The best material or in fact the only material of the prosecution was the transaction between the owner of the Company i.e. Mr. Doshi and accused No.1. However, Mr. Doshi is not examined and as such the prosecution evidence is deficient on this aspect.
