The view taken by the trial court drawn on the evidence on record is unreasonable and perverse and the High Court has rightly interfered with the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [Para 11] [446-C-D] Kalyan Singh v. State of M.P. (2006) 13 SCC 303; T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. (2006) 1 SCC 401; State represented by Inspector of Police, Pudukottai, T.N. v. A. Parthiban (2006) 11 SCC 473 - referred to. 1.2 The evidence of the complainant is found to be consistent and impeachable regarding the demand of Rs.500/- by the appellant as bribe money for giving favourable report in regard to the grant of permanent lease holder rights of the land to the complainant. His evidence is supported by contemporaneous documents prepared by the Investigating Officer before the money was delivered to the appellant. The complainant emphatically denied the suggestion of the appellant that Rs.500/- was sent to the appellant by DW-1 as repayment of the loan amount. The complainant, the investigating Officer and other witnesses who were present when the appellant was caught red handed by the Anti Corruption Team have been cross-examined at length by the defence, but nothing tangible has been extracted from their evidence to create any shadow of doubt that they are not truthful witnesses. They have given reliable and consistent version of the crime and their evidence inspires confidence. [Para 9] [465-F-G-H; 466- A] 1.3 Once it is proved that the money was recovered from the possession of the appellant, the burden of presumption as contemplated u/s. 20 of the P.C. Act, 1988 shifts upon the appellant, which he could not rebut through cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or by adducing reliable and convincing evidence to prove that DW-1 advanced Rs.500/- as loan to the appellant through the complainant. [Para 9] [464-H; 465-A] 1.4 DW-1 has not given any reason why he chose the complainant alone to deliver a sum of Rs.500/- to the appellant on the day when he was apprehended by the Anti Corruption Team