with phenolphthalein at CBI, Tambaram had found in the drawer of the appellant during the trap proceedings. While the demand of illegal gratification is spoken by PW-3 through the complaint as well as testimony before the Court, the recovery is spoken by PW-3-shadow witness and PW-4-trap laying officer. The contemporaneous documents namely, recovery mahazar[Ex.P9], phenolphthalein test conducted in the hands of the appellant immediately after trap, which has been proved positive and the chemical analysis report [Ex.P15] are suffice to show that there was demand and acceptance of M.O.1 [Rs.1500/-] by the appellant and the same had been recovered in the presence of the witnesses. When the appellant has failed to give any plausible explanation for the receipt of the money from the defacto complainant [PW-2], the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is necessarily to be drawn against the appellant. Having failed to rebut the presumption, the judgment of the trial Court is perfectly correct and need not be interfered regarding discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence.
