As per case facts, a Revenue Inspector was convicted by the Trial Court and High Court for demanding and accepting a bribe from a complainant seeking an inquiry report for ... drought compensation. The trap case conviction was based on the recovery of tainted money from a bag on the appellant's motorcycle, despite the chemical test on the appellant's hands being negative. The appellant appealed, arguing the crucial element of demand was uncorroborated, the witnesses were contradictory, and the proceedings suggested prior animus. The question arose whether the prosecution successfully proved the element of demand and acceptance of the bribe by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and if the presumption under Section 20 of the Act would apply. Finally, the Supreme Court found material contradictions and a seriously doubtful sequence of events in the prosecution's evidence, including conflicting witness accounts of where the money was placed and why the appellant was taken inside after the hand test failed. Since the factum of demand was not proved, the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellant, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act was held not to operate against him, setting aside the conviction and sentence.