As per case facts, the Extension Officer was convicted by the Trial Court for demanding and accepting an illegal gratification for submitting a spot inspection report, proven by a successful ... trap and the recovery of tainted money; the High Court reversed the conviction, doubting the demand since the official work was completed before the money transaction, leading the State to appeal. The question arose whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction when the recovery of the bribe amount was proved, thus negating the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Finally, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, agreeing that since the evidence regarding the initial demand for the bribe was suspicious and the complainant's credibility was questionable, the chain of demand, acceptance, and recovery was incomplete, therefore the legal presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Act was not applicable against the officer.