Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. This is an appeal against acquittal, filed by the State. The respondent is the sole accused in Special Case No. 6 of 2007, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Thoothukudi. He stood charged for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial Court, by Judgment, dated 27.12.2010, acquitted the respondent/accused. Challenging the same, the State is before this Court, with this appeal. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- "P.W.2, Mr. Muthalagu is a resident of Vembar Village. His brother is one Mr. Sun-daresan (P.W.4). On 25.06.2005, P.W.4, Mr. Sundaresan informed P.W.2 over phone that he was informed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Soorangudi Police Station to come to the Police Station in respect of an enquiry. P.W.2 told him to obey the direction of the police and go over to the Police Station. On 25.06.2005, at about 06.30 p.m., P.W.2 came to know that his brother (P.W.4) had been kept in the Police Station. Therefore, P.W.2 immediately proceeded to Soorangudi Police Station, wherein he found his brother (P.W.4) sitting in front of the police lock up. The accused was the then Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Soorangudi Police Station. He was also then present at the Police Station. P.W.2 enquired him as to why he had brought his brother P.W.4 to the Police Station and kept him in custody. The accused told him that P.W.4 had cut and removed trees from a public property and therefore he was brought to the Police Station. P.W.2 then returned and again took up one Mr. Sathiah, who is the Panchayat President to the Police Station at around 08.00 p.m. Mr. Sathaiah (P.W.6) told the accused that P.W.4 was not such a person, who would commit theft. Then, the accused let P.W.4 free, after obtaining a bond to come to the Police Station again. After that, on one day, the accused called P.W.2 to the Police Station and told him that for the purpose of Police Station expenses, he should pay Rs. 15,000/- to the accused. P.W.2 told the accused that his brother (P.W.4) had not committed any crime and there was no need for him to pay any amount to him. After that, on one day, the accused called P.W.2 to the Police Station and told him that for the purpose of Police Station expenses, he should pay Rs. 15,000/- to the accused. P.W.2 told the accused that his brother (P.W.4) had not committed any crime and there was no need for him to pay any amount to him. Then, P.W.2 returned and told P.W.4 about the same." 2. On 27.06.2005, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.6, all went together to Soorangudi Police Station. It was 11.30 a.m. The accused was not present. The other policemen in the Police Station told them that the accused would return only around 06.30 p.m. Accordingly, they were waiting and the accused returned by 06.30 p.m. At that time, the accused told P.W.2 that the Village Leader had given a complaint against P.W.4 and if Rs. 15,000/- was not paid, he would go to the extent of registering any case, including a false case, against P.W.4. Out of fear, P.W.2 paid Rs. 10,000/-, which was readily having with him. The accused, after having received the said amount, obtained a muchalika from P.W.4 to come again on the next day. 3. After some time, the accused contacted P.W.2 over phone and told him that he was going to a distant place and he would return back to the Police Station only on 03.07.2005. He further told him to come with the balance of Rs. 5,000/- on 03.07.2005. On 03.07.2005, at about 11.30 a.m., P.W.2 again contacted the accused over phone and told him that he could not mobilize necessary funds and thus he was in need of some more time. P.W.2 had contacted him through his cellphone No. 9443162998 and the accused responded that he would register a case, unless money was paid. 4. On 05.07.2005, by around 12.00 noon, P.W.2 had gone to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police Station and made an oral complaint about the above illegal demand made by the accused. The then Inspector of Police, reduced the said oral complaint into writing and obtained the signature of P.W.2. On the basis of the said statement (Ex. P.1), he registered a case in Crime No. 5 of 2005 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Ex. P.20, is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded the complaint and First Information Report to the Court. Immediately, he had planned to conduct a trap. On the basis of the said statement (Ex. P.1), he registered a case in Crime No. 5 of 2005 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Ex. P.20, is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded the complaint and First Information Report to the Court. Immediately, he had planned to conduct a trap. On 06.07.2005, at 05.00 a.m., he sent a letter to the District Electricity Board Superintending Engineer to send a staff of his office to be a witness. Similarly, he sent another letter to the Joint Director of Animal Husbandry. Soon thereafter, one Mr. Rajendrakumar, P.W.3, came from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Office and one Mr. Muthukrishnan, came from the Animal Husbandry Office. P.W.5 explained to them, the trap to be laid and also conducted demonstration of the phenolphthalein test. Then, P.W.2 gave Rs. 5,000/-, consisting of ten numbers of currency notes of 500 Rupees denomination. P.W.5, with the help of a policeman, smeared phenolphthalein powder on the said currency notes. He prepared an Observation Mahazar and handed over the currency notes to P.W.2. Then, he gave instructions to P.W.2 and P.W.3 to go to Soorangudi Police Station and if the accused is demanding to pay the said amount, then to make signals. Accordingly, P.W.5 took P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Mr. Muthukrishnan to Soorangudi Police Station. Somewhere near Soorangudi Police Station, P.W.5, Mr. Muthukrishnan and others were hiding, whereas P.W.2 and P.W.3 were asked to go to Soorangudi Police Station. Accordingly, P.W.2 and P.W.3 went into the Police Station. At that time, the accused was not present in the Police Station. A policeman, who was present in the Police Station told P.W.2 and P.W.3 that the accused would return within ten minutes. Accordingly, hardly within ten minutes, the accused returned to the Police Station. On seeing him, P.W.2 paid respect to him by saying "Vanakkam". The accused wanted P.W.2 to come into the room of the Sub Inspector. One constable, who was engaged in computer printing, just left the place. On seeing P.W.3, the accused wanted to know as to who he was. P.W.2 told him that P.W.3 was his brother in law. Therefore, he wanted P.W.3 to wait outside his room. Accordingly, P.W.3 left the room and waited outside. 5. Now, inside the Sub Inspector's room, there were two persons; one was the accused and the other was P.W.2. On seeing P.W.3, the accused wanted to know as to who he was. P.W.2 told him that P.W.3 was his brother in law. Therefore, he wanted P.W.3 to wait outside his room. Accordingly, P.W.3 left the room and waited outside. 5. Now, inside the Sub Inspector's room, there were two persons; one was the accused and the other was P.W.2. At that time, it is alleged that the accused enquired P.W.2 as to whether he was ready with the money. Immediately, P.W.2 took out the phenolphthalein smeared currency notes and attempted to give the same to the accused. The accused directed P.W.2 to keep the same in the nearby shelf. Accordingly, P.W.2 kept the currency notes beneath a notebook in the shelf. Then, the accused assured him that there would be no case against his brother. Then, P.W.2 came out of the Police Station. He took P.W.3, who was waiting outside the room, along with him. On coming out of the Police Station, P.W.2 made a signal, as planned. Immediately, P.W.5 and Mr. Muthukrishnan rushed towards the Police Station. 6. P.W.5 introduced the witnesses to the accused and introduced himself to the accused. P.W.5 enquired the accused as to whether he has received any amount from P.W.2. The accused told him that he had not received any amount. He further told that he was ready for any examination by P.W.5. He also cautioned P.W.5 that if P.W.2 had kept money elsewhere without his knowledge, not to register any case against him. 7. P.W.5, then, prepared a Sodium Carbonate Solution and wanted the accused to dip his right hand fingers. There was no visible colour change. The same was drained into a bottle and sealed. Then, P.W.5 prepared another Sodium Carbonate solution and wanted the accused to dip his left hand fingers. There was some colour change in the solution. P.W.5 drained the solution into a bottle and sealed the same also. Then, P.W.5 recovered these two bottles and many other records. He conducted personal search of the accused and found some currency notes and other personal belongings. They were all returned to the accused. 8. Thereafter, P.W.5 made a complete search of the entire Police Station and at last he found ten currency notes of 500 Rupees denomination in the shelf. Half portion of these currency notes were protruding outside the shelf and therefore it was so visible. They were all returned to the accused. 8. Thereafter, P.W.5 made a complete search of the entire Police Station and at last he found ten currency notes of 500 Rupees denomination in the shelf. Half portion of these currency notes were protruding outside the shelf and therefore it was so visible. P.W.5 recovered the same under mahazar in the presence of witnesses. He recovered many more records pertaining to the complaint made by P.W.4 and other connected records. On returning to the Police Station, P.W.5 forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand. Thereafter, he handed over the investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for further investigation. 9. P.W.18, Mr. Thangaraj, the succeeding Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation, further examined many more witnesses and filed final report against the accused on 18.02.2006. 10. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges. When the accused was questioned in respect of the charges, he pleaded innocence. 11. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as eighteen witnesses and marked 39 documents. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the de facto complainant, who has spoken about the complaint given and he has also vividly narrated the happenings during the trap. He has also spoken about the previous demand allegedly made by the accused. P.W.2, is an official witness, who had accompanied P.W.2 upto the Police Station, but he did not witness the alleged demand made by the accused nor the tainted money, which was kept by P.W.2 in the shelf, as he was waiting outside the Police Station. P.W.4, Mr. Sundaresan, is the brother of P.W.2, who has spoken about the complaint against him, the demand made by the accused and all the other relevant facts. P.W.6 is the Panchayat Board President, who has also spoken about the previous demand made. P.W 11 is the Scientific Assistant, who had occasion to examine the bottles, containing Sodium Carbonate Solutions, which were used for dipping the fingers of the accused. According to her, phenolphthalein as well as Sodium Carbonate were found in both the solutions. P.W. 14 is the Handwriting Expert, who has spoken about the handwriting found in the documents relating to the case against P.W.4. P.W. 18 is the Investigating Officer, who laid charge sheet and P.W. 5 is the officer, who laid the trap. 12. According to her, phenolphthalein as well as Sodium Carbonate were found in both the solutions. P.W. 14 is the Handwriting Expert, who has spoken about the handwriting found in the documents relating to the case against P.W.4. P.W. 18 is the Investigating Officer, who laid charge sheet and P.W. 5 is the officer, who laid the trap. 12. When the above materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied the same as false. But, he did not examine any witness on his part nor he marked any document. 13. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court had acquitted the respondent. Against the order of acquittal, the State has come up with this appeal. 14. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in respect of the previous demand made for illegal gratification, the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.6 are sufficient. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no reason to reject the evidence of these witnesses in respect of such demand for illegal gratification made. He would further submit that at the time of trap, P.W.2 alone was there inside the Sub Inspector's room, where the accused was sitting. Very ingeniously, the accused had sent P.W.3 outside the Police Station, so as to avoid him from witnessing the entire occurrence. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, P.W.2 alone was there in the Sub Inspector's room. He would further submit that P.W.2 has categorically stated that it was only this accused, who made the demand and asked him as to whether he had come with the money that he earlier demanded or not. In response to the same, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, P.W.2 attempted to give the currency notes to the accused. It was only on his direction, the money was kept in the shelf beneath a notebook. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would therefore submit that though the tainted currency notes were not found in the possession of the accused, the very fact that it was recovered from the shelf, would go to corroborate the evidence of P.W.2 that the money was kept in the shelf by P.W.2 only, as directed by the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would therefore submit that though the tainted currency notes were not found in the possession of the accused, the very fact that it was recovered from the shelf, would go to corroborate the evidence of P.W.2 that the money was kept in the shelf by P.W.2 only, as directed by the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that this aspect has not been considered by the trial Court properly. 16. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the phenolphthalein test has proved positive so far as both of his hands are concerned. The accused has got no explanation, he pointed out. It is his further contention that after P.W.2 had left the Police Station, the accused thereafter took the money and that is how there were smears of phenol-phthalein in his fingers, which proved the phenolphthalein test positive. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the accused certainly had knowledge that the money was kept in the shelf. 17. It is the further contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act must be drawn against the accused, because, the money, though was not in his physical possession, it was under his constructive possession. Since there is evidence to prove that he had received the amount by directing P.W.2 to keep the money in the shelf, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the presumption under Section 20 of the said Act, should be drawn against the accused. The said presumption has not been rebutted by the accused, he contended. 18. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that no strong motive has been attributed to P.W.2 and his companions as to why they should go to the extent of making a false complaint against the accused. All these aspects have not been considered by the Trial Court in their proper perspective and thus, according to him, the trial Court was in error in acquitting the accused. 19. But, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused would vehemently oppose this appeal. According to him, the motive for making false complaint, has been clearly established, during the cross-examination of P.W.2. He has further pointed out that money was not recovered from the person of the accused. 19. But, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused would vehemently oppose this appeal. According to him, the motive for making false complaint, has been clearly established, during the cross-examination of P.W.2. He has further pointed out that money was not recovered from the person of the accused. The conduct of the accused during the trap, according to the learned counsel, assumes much importance. According to him, since, P.W.5 entered into the Police Station and enquired the accused, the accused told him that he had not received any money from P.W.2. Thus, the defence that he did not receive any amount from P.W.2, taken at the time of trial, is not an afterthought. He would further submit that subsequently when the right hand fingers were dipped in the Sodium Carbonate Solution, there was no visible colour change. Therefore, even in the mahazar, it was mentioned that it was a colourless liquid. But, when it was received by the Scientific Expert, it was a pink colour solution and it has not been explained as to how there occurred, such a colour change. Absence of any explanation to the same would prove, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused, that the bottles have been tampered with. Therefore, according to him, no importance could be given to the phenolphthalein test. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused would further submit that so far as the trap is concerned, the prosecution relies only on the solitary evidence of P.W.2, as P.W.3 did not witness the occurrence. According to P.W.2, he kept the money in the shelf, as directed by the accused and he duly informed the same to P.W.5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused would point out that had it been true, then P.W.5 would have straightaway recovered the amount from the shelf without making a search. This circumstance is highlighted by the learned counsel to say that the money would not have been kept in the shelf with the knowledge of the accused. At any rate, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused, presumption of innocence, being a cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence, gets further strengthened by the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. To rebut the said presumption, the prosecution should make out a very strong case, which, in this case, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to discharge. To rebut the said presumption, the prosecution should make out a very strong case, which, in this case, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to discharge. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the accused is entitled for acquittal and the Judgment of the trial Court does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 21. I have considered the above submissions. 22. Admittedly, in this case, the tainted currency notes were not recovered from the person of the accused. According to P.W.5, as soon as he got signal from P.W.2, he entered into the Police Station and when he enquired the accused as to whether he has received money from P.W.2, the accused immediately told that he did not receive any money from P.W.2 at all. Thus, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused, the defence that the accused did not receive any money from P.W.2, is not an afterthought. Such explanation offered at the earliest opportunity by the accused should carry weightage. 23. Thereafter, admittedly, the phenol-phthalein test was conducted to the fingers of the accused. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that when the right hand fingers were dipped, there was no colour change and that is the reason why, the solution was recorded as colourless solution in the mahazar. When the left hand fingers were dipped, there was, of course, colour change, even according to the case of the prosecution. But, it is quite surprising to say that at the time when bottles were received in the lab, both contained pink colour solutions. How the bottle containing the solution dipped by the right hand fingers, which was colourless all along, became a coloured solution, has not been explained. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused that after all the seal was in the hands of P.W.5 and therefore there was every chance for tampering. This contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused cannot be rejected, because the prosecution is not in a position to explain as to how the colourless solution had become a coloured solution, when it was received by the Forensic Lab. It creates enormous doubt in the case of the prosecution. All was not well to the case. Some tampering had occurred. 24. It creates enormous doubt in the case of the prosecution. All was not well to the case. Some tampering had occurred. 24. Thereafter, when P.W.5 informed the accused that he was going to make a personal search. The accused voluntarily offered for the same and he also told that there was no tainted money with him and he also told that if P.W.2 had kept the money elsewhere in the office, he should not be taken into the task for that purpose. From this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that this statement would give inference that the accused had knowledge that money was kept elsewhere. This submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appears to be reasonable to some extent. But, this submission is liable to be rejected, for which I am going to narrate the reasons later on. When personal search was made, some personal belongings alone were recovered and tainted notes were not found with the accused. 25. After that, it is the case of P.W.5 that he made a complete search of the entire Police Station. P.W.2 was very much available at that time. He had already told P.W.5 as to where he had kept the money. If that is so, there was no need for P.W.5 to go in search of the money in the entire office. He could have asked P.W.2 to identify the place, where the money was kept or he would have chosen to search only in the shelf. Instead of that, he went on searching the entire Police Station. Apart from that, the tainted currency notes were protruding outside from the notebook, which could be visibly seen by anybody. Even then, as to why a thorough search was conducted by P.W.5, is not explained. This fact would create again a doubt in the case of the prosecution. This would give an inference that the accused had no knowledge that the money was kept by P.W.2 in the shelf. Even, P.W.5 himself was not aware as to where money was kept. That is why, he made a complete search of the entire Police Station. Therefore, the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that money would have been kept only on the direction of the accused in the shelf, cannot be accepted. 26. Next comes the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. That is why, he made a complete search of the entire Police Station. Therefore, the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that money would have been kept only on the direction of the accused in the shelf, cannot be accepted. 26. Next comes the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. It is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that since the money was kept in the shelf of the office room, as directed by the accused, presumption under Section 20 of the Act should be drawn against the accused. In order to draw the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, essentially the prosecution should prove that the accused had either received or obtained or attempted to receive any illegal gratification. Here, in this case, I have already quoted that the accused did not receive the money and there is no proof that the money was kept in the shelf on his direction or with his knowledge. Therefore, it is impossible in law to draw a presumption under Section 20 of the Act, against the accused. 27. Now, turning to the previous demand made, admittedly, there was a petition pending on the file of the accused against P.W.4 and the same was under enquiry and because of that P.W. 2 and P.W.4 might have been aggrieved. Apart from that, there are other motives suggested by the accused. Though, the accused has not succeeded in establishing a strong motive, the materials available on record would be sufficient to hold that P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.6 are not fully believable. 28. As a matter of fact, P.W.6 has not at all supported the case of the prosecution and he has turned completely hostile, who was examined to prove that the accused made a demand for an illegal gratification of Rs. 15,000/-. But, he has turned hostile and thus the prosecution does not have the benefit of his evidence. Even, P.W.4 is not an eye witness to the alleged demand made. So, there is only one evidence regarding the demand made, that is, the evidence of P.W.2, which remains uncorroborated. In view of the above improbabilities and contradictions, the evidence of P.W.2 is not believable. 29. Even, P.W.4 is not an eye witness to the alleged demand made. So, there is only one evidence regarding the demand made, that is, the evidence of P.W.2, which remains uncorroborated. In view of the above improbabilities and contradictions, the evidence of P.W.2 is not believable. 29. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused, the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of the Criminal Jurisprudence of this country, by which, it shall be presumed that the accused is innocent, until the same is proved, beyond reasonable doubt. The acquittal recorded by the trial Court, further strengthens the said presumption. In order to rebut the said presumption, the prosecution has to make out a strong case, which, in this case, the prosecution has failed miserably. Therefore, I find that the trial Court was right in acquitting the accused and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.