As per case facts: The appellant, an Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was accused of demanding a bribe for contract labour license renewal. The complainant reported a demand, and a trap ... operation ensued where the tainted money was found in the appellant's table drawer, though his hands tested negative for phenolphthalein powder. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant, citing inconsistencies in the complaint, a hostile witness, the unexplained exclusion of the independent witness during the transaction, and a plausible defense of money planting. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant, leading to the current appeal to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court's order of acquittal by failing to adequately address material inconsistencies and disregarding the well-settled principle of not disturbing an acquittal when a reasonable view of the evidence supports it. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal. It held that the High Court failed to demonstrate any compelling reason to reject the Trial Court's reasonable view, as the prosecution failed to prove demand and voluntary acceptance of the bribe, which are mandatory prerequisites for a conviction under the PC Act.