As per case facts, the complainant's father purchased land, and the registry was given to a patwari for entry. Later, the appellant, another patwari, allegedly demanded money to process the ... entry. A trap operation was conducted, and money was recovered from the appellant's house. The appellant argued that the matter was not within his jurisdiction, the transaction was already recorded, and the complainant's statement in court did not support the prosecution. Inconsistencies among witnesses and issues with electronic evidence were also raised. The question arose whether the prosecution successfully proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, especially given the lack of proper jurisdiction, prior entry of the transaction, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies and electronic evidence. Finally, the court ruled that mere recovery of money is insufficient; demand and acceptance must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish the appellant's jurisdiction over the matter, the demand for bribe, or the acceptance of money by the appellant directly. Significant inconsistencies in witness statements regarding the recovery of money and the lack of a valid certificate for electronic evidence further weakened the prosecution's case. Therefore, the appellant was acquitted of the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.