As per case facts, the complainant, a Clerk, alleged that the appellant, another Clerk, demanded money to process budget allotment. A trap was laid, and tainted notes were recovered from ... beneath the appellant's table cloth, and his hand-wash turned pink. The appellant claimed false implication due to enmity and argued he had no authority for budget sanction. He appealed the conviction. The question arose whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, especially given witness contradictions and recovery details. Finally, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, citing inconsistencies, a partially resiled shadow witness, and a non-supporting independent witness. The recovery from beneath the table cloth and the appellant's defense about lack of authority further weakened the case. Thus, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.