As per case facts, a complainant alleged that a police officer demanded a bribe to help his cousins in a criminal case, threatening to add serious charges. A trap was ... organized by the CBI, where the complainant handed over the bribe amount to the officer in a police vehicle. The officer, upon seeing the trap team, threw the money on the road. His hand and pocket later tested positive for a chemical. The officer was convicted by the trial court. The officer appealed, arguing that the demand for illegal gratification was not proven, citing contradictions in the complainant's testimony, lack of corroboration from independent witnesses who neither saw nor heard the transaction, and recovery of money from the road, not his person. Crucial witnesses were also not examined. The question arose whether the prosecution had established the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, which is sine qua non for conviction under the PC Act, thereby allowing the presumption under Section 20 to be invoked. Finally, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts of demand and acceptance. The complainant's testimony was unreliable and uncorroborated, independent witnesses did not support the demand or acceptance, recovery was from the road, and crucial witnesses were not examined. Therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 20 could not be invoked, and the appellant was acquitted.