As per case facts, the appellant, a Patwari, was accused of demanding a bribe for a revenue extract. A trap was laid, and an amount was recovered from him. He ... was convicted by a Special Judge. The appeal challenges this conviction, arguing that the bribe demand was not proven, recovery evidence was weak, and the complainant turned hostile. The question arose whether the prosecution had sufficiently proved the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, especially when the complainant turned hostile and the shadow witness did not corroborate the direct exchange of money. Finally, the High Court found that neither the demand nor the voluntary acceptance was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence was inconsistent, and mere recovery or a positive test without proof of demand was insufficient. The Court set aside the conviction, stating that suspicion cannot take the place of proof, and acquitted the appellant.