JUDGMENT :- 1. The State is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent is the accused in Special Case No.5/2011 on the file of the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirapalli. He stood charged for offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial Court, by judgment dated 18.09.2012, has acquitted the accused. As against the same, the State is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows: P.W.2 is a resident of Bhishopkulam Street, in Puthur, Trichy. He is residing in the house bearing Door No.20/5, new Door NO.16. According to him, he purchased the said house from one Venkatraman, Rengasamy and Ramanujam, by means of an unregistered sale deed. However, he paid house tax for the said house to the Municipality. Thus, according to him, he owns the said house. (ii) On 23.08.2006, at about 09.00 a.m., when P.W.2 was in the bazar at Trichy, one Contractor by name Murugesan told him that his motorcycle had been seized by the police and produced before the Court and for getting it released, P.W.2 should stand as surety. P.W.2 agreed for the same. Then Mr. Murugesan, asked P.W.2 to get necessary certificate from the local Village Administrative Officer to show that he owned the above said property. P.W.2 agreed. (iii) On the same day, in the evening, P.W.2 proceeded to the Village Administrative Officer of Puthur Village. At about 04.30, p.m., when he reached the office, he found the accused/the Village Administrative Officer, in the office sitting in his chair. P.W.2 requested him to issue certificate, showing that he is the owner of the above said house, for the purpose of producing the same before Court. The accused asked for Rs.500/- from P.W.2. When P.W.2 asked the accused, as to what for should he pay the amount, the accused told him that certificate cannot be given, without money. He further told P.W.2 to give Rs.500/- and then get the certificate. P.W.2 felt that it was not proper for him to pay bribe to the accused. Therefore, he decided to prefer complaint to the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. (iv) On 24.08.2006 at 08.00 a.m., he went to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption police station. He further told P.W.2 to give Rs.500/- and then get the certificate. P.W.2 felt that it was not proper for him to pay bribe to the accused. Therefore, he decided to prefer complaint to the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. (iv) On 24.08.2006 at 08.00 a.m., he went to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption police station. Along with him, he took Rs.400/- i.e. four currency notes of hundred rupees denomination, the house tax receipts for the house and the family card. P.W.11-Mr.Ramachandran, was the Inspector of Police, attached to Vigilance and Anti-corruption at Trichirappalli. P.W.2 narrated to him orally the above illegal demand made by the accused. P.W.11 reduced the same into writing and after having read the same, P.W.2 signed the said statement (Ex.P.5). Based on the same, P.W.11 registered a case in Cr.No.10 of 2006, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Then P.W.11 got permission from his higher authorities for conducting a trap. P.W.11, then sent an intimation to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Agricultural Department, at Trichy, to depute a staff from his office, to be a witness for the proposed trap. Similarly, he had sent another request to the Office of the Labour Inspector to depute a staff. At about 11.30 a.m. on 24.08.2006 from the Office of the Labour Inspector, P.W.3-Mr.Sankar arrived and from the Office of Assistant Executive Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department, one Junior Assistant by name Ramamurthy also arrived. (v) P.W.11 explained to P.W.3 and Mr.Ramamurthy about the proposed trap. Then, he conducted demonstration of phenolphthalein test. Thereafter, he received four currency notes of hundred rupees denomination from P.W.2. P.W.11 smeared the said currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and gave the same back to P.W.2. He prepared an observation mahazar for the said purpose. Then he explained to P.W.2 and P.W.3 that after the demand if made, the money should be given to the accused. With these instructions, P.W.11 took P.W.2 and P.W.3 in his vehicle to the office of the accused. (vi) Somewhere near the office of the accused, P.W.11 stopped the vehicle and asked P.W.2 and P.W.3 to go to the office of the accused and to give a signal, after the accused received the money. P.W.11 and his officials had hidden themselves near the place of occurrence. (vii) P.W.2 and P.W.3 went into the office of the accused at about 01.30 p.m.. P.W.11 and his officials had hidden themselves near the place of occurrence. (vii) P.W.2 and P.W.3 went into the office of the accused at about 01.30 p.m.. They found that there were six or seven persons standing inside the office. On seeing P.W.2, the accused, who was inside the office, wanted him to wait outside. Accordingly, P.W.2 and P.W.3 were waiting for sometime outside the office of the accused. Then after the persons, who were standing inside, had left, the accused called P.W.2 into his office. P.W.2 went into the office, followed by P.W.3. On seeing P.W.2, the accused enquired as to whether he had brought the money that he had earlier asked for. P.W.2 told that he had brought Rs.400/-, which the accused had earlier asked for. The accused wanted to know as to who P.W.3 was. P.W.2 told that P.W.3 had come only with him. Thereafter, P.W.2 took out the tainted currency notes from his pocket and gave the same to the accused. The accused received the currency notes with his right hand, counted the same by using both the hands and kept them in his right side pant pocket. Then, he wrote down the required certificate, affixed the seal and gave it to P.W.2 and P.W.2 and P.W.3 came out of his office and made a signal. (viii) On receiving the signal, P.w.11, along with Mr.Ramamurthy and other police rushed to the office of the accused. On their way, he found P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.11 enquired them and P.W.2 and P.W.3 told him that the accused had received the amount. Then, P.W.11 along with P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Mr.Ramamurthy and other police officials, entered into the office of the accused. on seeing the police, the accused started sweting. P.W.11 then made him to relax and then conducted phenolphthalein test to his fingers of both the hands. They turned positive. The Sodium Carbonate solutions, which had turned pink, were all collected, sealed and recovered under mahazars. Then P.W.11 asked the accused, as to whether he had received money. The accused answered affirmatively and took out the money from his pocket and gave the same to P.W.11. P.W.11 with the help of the witnesses, verified the numbers of the currency notes, which tallied with the numbers earlier mentioned in the mahazar. Then P.W.11 recovered those currency notes. Then P.W.11 asked the accused, as to whether he had received money. The accused answered affirmatively and took out the money from his pocket and gave the same to P.W.11. P.W.11 with the help of the witnesses, verified the numbers of the currency notes, which tallied with the numbers earlier mentioned in the mahazar. Then P.W.11 recovered those currency notes. P.W.11 recovered few more records from the office of the accused, arrested the accused, brought him to the police station and then forwarded him to the Court. Then he handed over the investigation to P.W.12, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police. (ix) The Deputy Superintendent of Police, during the course of investigation, examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and forwarded their statements to the Court. He examined P.W.4-Sahul Hamid- Special Tahsildar, P.W.5- Cashier, who spoke about the house tax receipts, P.W.6-Regional Transport Officer who spoke about the ownership of the vehicle, which was seized by the police. P.W.7 is the Police Officer, who registered the F.I.R. in respect of the vehicle, P.W.8 is the Revenue Inspector, who spoke about the house belonging to P.W.2, P.W.9-an Advocate who appeared for Mr.Murugesan, for return of the vehicle, P.W.10-Mrs.Vishalakshi, the Scientific Expert who gave opinion about the phenolphthalein test. P.W.11 and P.W.12 are the Investigating Officers. On completing the investigation, P.W.12 laid the charge sheet against the accused. (x) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and read over and explained to the accused and the accused denied the same. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, as detailed above as many as 12 witnesses were examined and 22 documents were exhibited. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same. He filed a detailed written statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he took the stand that it is true that he received a sum of Rs.400/- from P.W.2 during the trap proceedings. But according to him, it was not received as illegal gratification. His defence was that earlier, when P.W.2 had come for a certificate, he told him that he could issue the certificate, only after verifying the original records, which would take a day. But according to him, it was not received as illegal gratification. His defence was that earlier, when P.W.2 had come for a certificate, he told him that he could issue the certificate, only after verifying the original records, which would take a day. He further told P.W.2 that if willing, he could pay any amount for Flag day, which the accused was authorised to collect. P.W.2 told him that he would pay Rs.400/- towards Flag Day collection. (xi) According to the accused, under the impression that the said amount of Rs.400/-, which was paid during the trap proceedings, was only towards the Flag day collection and he never intended to receive the same as bribe. It is his further explanation that P.W.2 was an employee under one Abdul Rashid for sometime and there is a dispute between Abdul Rashid and the accused and at the instance of Abdul Rashid, a false complaint has been made. Thus according to the accused, he did not receive the said amount as a bribe. He further explained that the above facts are known to one Mr.V.Dhandayuthapani and Shiek Dawood who are D.W.1 and D.W.2 respectively. (xii) D.W.1-Mr.Dhandayuthapani, in his evidence has stated that on 01.08.2006, he made an application to the Taluk office, Trichy for patta transfer. He was informed by the Tahsildar's office to meet the Village Administrative Officer. Accordingly, he met the accused at his office. At that time, the accused told him that to verify the records it would take few days. He further told D.W.1 that if he was willing, he could pay Rs.500/- towards the Flag day collection, for which he had authorisation. D.W.1 also expressed his willingness to pay Rs.500/- towards the same. Then the accused wanted him to come on 21.08.2006 to receive the necessary certificate. Accordingly, on 21.08.2006, he went to the office of the accused, where he gave Rs.500/-, towards the Flag Day collection, for which the accused gave a receipt under Ex.D.3. Ex.D.2 is the patta pass book. (xiii) D.W.2- Mr.Sheik Dawood has stated that on 24.08.2000, he, along with one Jameel, had gone to the office of the accused at about 01.00 p.m. to get income certificate. There were four to five people already in the office. The accused was there. Ex.D.2 is the patta pass book. (xiii) D.W.2- Mr.Sheik Dawood has stated that on 24.08.2000, he, along with one Jameel, had gone to the office of the accused at about 01.00 p.m. to get income certificate. There were four to five people already in the office. The accused was there. At that time, a person aged about 60 years, (later on identified as P.W.2) came to the Village Administrative Officer, produced his family card and house tax receipts to him. At that time, the accused asked him, as where was his application. Then he went out to bring his application. The accused started writing the certificate. The man(P.W.2), who went out, immediately returned. By that time, the accused had completed the writing of the certificate. Then P.W.2 gave four hundred rupees notes to the accused. At that time, he told the accused that he was paying the said amount towards the Flag day collection, as donation. He put the money on the table and went out. Thereafter, P.W.2, accompanied by the police, came into the office of the accused. When the accused was enquired, the accused told him that the money was paid by P.W.2 only towards Flag day collection. That statement of the accused was also reduced into writing. Then D.W.2 and others were sent out of the office. Later on, he came to know that the accused had been arrested. (xiv) Taking into consideration the above evidence, the trial Court accepted the defence of the accused and held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case and accordingly acquitted the accused. That is how, the State is before this Court with this appeal. 3. Heard Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by taking me through the records and by referring to the grounds of appeal, would submit that the trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence let in by the prosecution in their proper perspectives. According to him, the first demand for illegal gratification made by the accused on 23.08.2006 has been spoken by P.W.2 in a vivid fashion and to reject his evidence, absolutely there is no reason. He would further submit that without causing any delay, P.W.2 had gone to the police station and made a complaint on the next day in the morning itself. He would further submit that without causing any delay, P.W.2 had gone to the police station and made a complaint on the next day in the morning itself. Thus, the prompt lodging of F.I.R. by P.W.2 stands as a guarantee for the truth of the case of the prosecution; but, the same has not been properly appreciated by the lower Court, he contended. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that in the manner of the conduct of phenolphthalein test, no infirmity could be noticed. During the trap proceedings, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, P.Ws.2 and 3 have categorically stated that the accused demanded illegal gratification and then obtained the same from P.W.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there can be no reason, much less a valid reason, to reject this part evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, which are duly corroborated by the phenolphthalein test also. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that once it is proved by the prosecution that the accused had received the amount, then the presumption, under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, should be raised and according to the said provision, it should be presumed that the above said amount of Rs.400/- was received only either as reward or as motive for the purpose of issuing the certificate requested by P.W.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the said presumption under Section 20 of the Act has not been rebutted by the accused at all. Thus, according to him, the prosecution has clearly proved that the accused had received Rs.400/-, by making an illegal demand only towards as illegal gratification. Thus, according to him, the offence under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been clearly established. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the lower Court, having accepted the case of the prosecution that the accused had received the above said sum of Rs.400/-, had failed to draw the presumption under Section 20(i) of the Act. He would further contend that the lower Court, instead of drawing such a presumption, has merely accepted the explanation of the accused that he received the said amount only towards the Flag Day collection. 8. He would further contend that the lower Court, instead of drawing such a presumption, has merely accepted the explanation of the accused that he received the said amount only towards the Flag Day collection. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that had it been true that the money was received towards the Flag Day collection, certainly, before P.W.2 could leave the office, the accused would have issued receipt for the same, as it was issued to D.W.1 under Ex.D.3. The very fact that no such receipt was issued, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would go to show that there is no truth in the explanation offered by the accused. So far as the evidences of D.Ws.1 and 2, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that they are interested witnesses and their evidences are simply liable to be rejected. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the motive on the part of P.W.2, projected by the accused cannot be true. He would state that Abdul Rashid had some enmity with the accused in the year 2000, whereas the occurrence was in the year 2006. Therefore, the motive suggested is too remote in point of time, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended. Thus, according to him, the prosecution has clearly established the case against the accused and therefore, the judgment of the trial Court needs interference at the hands of this Court. 10. The learned Counsel for the respondent/accused would vehemently oppose this appeal. According to him, the presumption of innocence, which is available to the accused during the trial, got further strengthened by the acquittal recorded by the trial Court. It is his further contention that when the lower Court, on appreciating all the facts and circumstance of the case, has come to the conclusion that Rs.400/-, namely the tainted money, was received by the accused, not as an illegal gratification, but only as the legal donation, even if it is possible to take a different view against the accused, which is equally possible, it is not permissible for this Court to take a view, which is unfavourable to the accused and substitute the same in the place of the view taken by the lower Court. 11. The learned Counsel for the respondent would further submit that the lower Court has drawn the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. 11. The learned Counsel for the respondent would further submit that the lower Court has drawn the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. The lower Court has held that the presumption stands rebutted. The learned Counsel would further submit that the rebuttal of the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be made from various facts and circumstances elicited during the trial. In this case, according to him, P.W.2 has categorically admitted during cross-examination that the accused wanted him to pay any amount towards the Flag Day collection, for which he had been authorised by the Tahsildar to collect. He has further admitted that he was told that it was his willingness to pay the amount that matters. This admission of P.W.2, according to the learned Counsel, would go to show that the accused never intended to demand any amount as illegal gratification and the amount asked for on 23.08.2006 was only the amount that was collected legally. 12. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Tahsildar, P.W.4, has categorically admitted that he had authorised the Village Administrative Officer to collect donations towards the Flag Day. The learned Counsel would further submit that the oral evidences of D.Ws.1 and 2 would clearly go to show that the accused had collected some amounts towards the Flag Day collection from others also. The learned Counsel further pointed out that at the time of trap also, it was not demanded as illegal gratification. He would further point out that the words spoken at the time of trap would clearly indicate the same. The learned Counsel would further submit that after receipt of the money, even before the accused could prepare receipt for the same, P.W.2 had gone out and came back with police Officials and therefore, he could not prepare receipt and give the same to P.W.2. He would further submit that when P.W.11 asked him about the money, the accused told him in detail that the money was received only towards the Flag day collection. 13. The learned Counsel for the respondent would further submit that the accused had made a long statement explaining the events and the same was reduced into writing by P.W.11 and the said statement was suppressed. He would further submit that P.W.3 had categorically admitted, during cross-examination, that a long statement was recorded at the time of trap from the accused. The learned Counsel for the respondent would further submit that the accused had made a long statement explaining the events and the same was reduced into writing by P.W.11 and the said statement was suppressed. He would further submit that P.W.3 had categorically admitted, during cross-examination, that a long statement was recorded at the time of trap from the accused. The suppression of the said statement of the accused, which contains the earliest explanation offered by the accused also would give rise to an inference against the prosecution, the learned Counsel contended. The learned Counsel would further point out that the motive for P.W.2 foisting the case has been in a way admitted by him in as much as he himself has stated that he was working under Abdul Rashid for sometime and the said Abdul Rashid has got no good relationship with the accused. This motive also would create a doubt in the case of the prosecution, he contended. 14. The learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that from the above circumstances, the accused has rebutted the presumption drawn under Section 20(i) of the Act and thus, when there were two views possible - one in favour of the accused and another one in favour of the prosecution - the lower Court, rightly, has taken the view in favour of the accused and acquitted the accused, as the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus according to the learned Counsel for the respondent/accused there is no ground in favour of the prosecution to reverse the acquittal, in this appeal. 15. I have considered the above submissions, carefully and I have also gone through the records. 16. From the rival submissions made and from the records produced before me, more particularly the evidence let in by the prosecution as well as the defence, it is crystal clear that the accused had received a sum of Rs.400/- from P.W.2 at the time of trap. Now, the question is whether the said amount was demanded and received as illegal gratification, so as to make out an offence under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. So far as the first charge under Section 7 of the Act is concerned, it relates to the occurrence that allegedly took place on 23.08.2006. Now, the question is whether the said amount was demanded and received as illegal gratification, so as to make out an offence under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. So far as the first charge under Section 7 of the Act is concerned, it relates to the occurrence that allegedly took place on 23.08.2006. To prove this alleged demand made on 23.08.2006, the prosecution is left only with the evidence of P.W.2 If the evidence of P.W.2 in respect of this occurrence is beyond any doubt, there can be no difficulty for this Court to accept the same. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the accused, the evidence of P.W.2, on this aspect, is highly doubtful. The first and the foremost reason is that P.W.2 is not an independent witness and he has got motive, because his master had a very strong motive against the accused. But, on that score, I am not prepared to reject the evidence of P.W.2 as false. What all that I would say is that the evidence of P.W.2 requires close scrutiny. 17. Keeping in mind, the said proposition, if we look into the other facts which happened on 23.08.2006, it is in the evidence of P.W.2, during cross-examination, that the accused wanted him to pay any amount towards the Flag Day collection, subject to his willingness. This part of the evidence creates initial doubt in the case of the prosecution. P.W.2, during cross-examination, would further say that he did not tell anything about the demand and the request for the Flag Day collection to P.W.11, when he had gone there to make a complaint and even subsequently during the course of investigation. Thus, according to him, the request made by the accused to pay money for the Flag day collection, was kept as secret by him without disclosing the same to P.W.11. It is not explained to the Court as to why P.W.2 had kept the same as a secret, had he been honest enough to tell the truth. Quite contrary to the same, P.W.2 offered an explanation for the same by stating that P.W.11 did not ask him and therefore he did not disclose. It is not explained to the Court as to why P.W.2 had kept the same as a secret, had he been honest enough to tell the truth. Quite contrary to the same, P.W.2 offered an explanation for the same by stating that P.W.11 did not ask him and therefore he did not disclose. But quite contrary to the same, P.W.11 would say that he thoroughly interrogated P.W.2 as to whether the amount asked for by the accused was towards any other legal collection, for which, P.W.2 did not disclose these facts. This would clearly go to show that P.W.2 is a doubtful witness. 18. Going into the occurrence on 24.08.2006, the conversation between P.W.2 and the accused at the time of occurrence assumes much importance. It is needless to point out that everything spoken at the time of trap would fall within the realm of res gestae evidence covered under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. The words spoken at the time of trap will give a lot of indication about the intention of the parties, as to whether the money paid was towards illegal gratification or for any other legal purpose. In the instant case, from the words spoken to by the accused, there is no indication that he demanded the above said Rs.400/- towards illegal gratification for issuing certificate. What he asked P.W.2 was as to whether he had come with money. P.W.2 replied stating that he had come with the money that the accused had requested for. Even there, there is no indication that the money was meant for bribe. In the above background, it is clear that on 23.08.2006 itself, the accused had requested P.W.2 to pay towards the Flag Day collection and from the words spoken at the time of occurrence, there is every reason for the accused to believe that the money that P.W.2 had brought was only for the Flag day collection. 19. The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that P.W.2 knew very well that what he paid to the accused was only bribe money. Assuming that to that extent there is truth in it, the accused would not have known that it was paid towards bribe because, his request was only towards the Flag Day collection. 19. The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that P.W.2 knew very well that what he paid to the accused was only bribe money. Assuming that to that extent there is truth in it, the accused would not have known that it was paid towards bribe because, his request was only towards the Flag Day collection. Unless there was ad idem between the two parties that the word "paid" and the word "received" were for one single purpose, namely illegal gratification, it cannot be concluded that the accused demanded and received the said amount as illegal gratification. 20. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is right in saying that once it is proved that the money was received by the accused, the Court should draw the presumption under Section 20(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act that it was received towards reward or motive. The said presumption is after all rebuttable. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the accused, the rebuttal can be by eliciting certain facts, either in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses or in the oral or documentary evidences let in by the accused. At any rate, the rebuttal need not be proved with the same vigour, as that is required from the prosecution to prove the case against the accused. It is enough, if the accused is able to rebut the presumption by means of preponderance of probabilities. 21. In the instant case, the facts, which I have narrated earlier, namely there was a request for payment towards the Flag Day collection made on 23.08.2006, the motive for P.W.2. to keep the request of the accused without disclosing the same to the Inspector of Police, the words spoken at the time of alleged occurrence, the motive between the accused and the master of P.W.2 would all go to rebut the presumption raised under Section 20(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 22. Apart from that, it is not as though the defence taken is an after thought P.W.3 has categorically stated that immediately after the occurrence, the accused was interrogated by P.W.11 and he made a long statement and the same was reduced into writing. It is the case of the accused himself that he made a long statement, explaining the events and that was reduced into writing by P.W.11. That statement did not see the light of the day. It is the case of the accused himself that he made a long statement, explaining the events and that was reduced into writing by P.W.11. That statement did not see the light of the day. P.W.11, during cross-examination, would state that he did not record any statement at all from the accused. In my considered opinion, fair investigation requires fair opportunity to the accused also to explain his version. If this part of the admission made by P.W.11 is to be accepted, then I have to hold that fair opportunity was not afforded to the accused. If suppose fair opportunity was afforded to the accused at the time of trap to give any explanation and if he had failed to make any explanation at once, any explanation made for the first time during trial may be branded as an after thought. Therefore, opportunity to the accused at the time of trap to make explanation is very essential as a part of fair investigation. In the light of the evidence of P.W.3, who is an independent witness, I am not prepared to accept the evidence of P.W.11 that he did not record any statement from the accused. I hold that there was some statement recorded which contained the earliest explanation made by the accused and the same has been suppressed by the prosecution. 23. P.W.4-the Special Tahsildar has admitted that he had authorised the accused to collect donations for Flag Day. Apart from that, D.Ws.1 and 2 have also stated that from them also the accused asked for donation towards the Flag Day and they paid money. The receipts issued to them by the accused have also been marked in evidence. This would clearly go to show that the defence taken by the accused cannot be simply brushed aside, as an after thought. He has stated the same consistently from the beginning. He has been authorised by the Tahsildar to collect such money. He collected such money from D.Ws.1 and 2 and others also. D.W.2 is an important witness, who has stated that he was present at the time when P.W.2 came and paid the tainted money. This is in tune with the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.2 and 3 had stated that when they reached the office of the accused at 01.30p.m., there were few people standing inside the office. D.W.2 is an important witness, who has stated that he was present at the time when P.W.2 came and paid the tainted money. This is in tune with the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.2 and 3 had stated that when they reached the office of the accused at 01.30p.m., there were few people standing inside the office. D.W.2 claims that he was one of those persons standing in the office. Though D.W.2 has been cross-examined at length by the prosecution, nothing has been elicited to doubt his evidence. He has also stated that at the time of trap, when P.W.2 gave money, P.W.2 told the accused that it was only for Flag day collection. 24. All these facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, would clearly go to rebut the presumption under Section 20(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent, assuming that the view that the accused received the said amount only towards illegal gratification is also equally possible, this Court cannot substitute the said view in the place of the well considered view taken by the lower Court. I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, in this appeal, I do not find any merit at all. 25. In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.