As per case facts, the Petitioner, a Sub-Inspector, filed a charge sheet against Respondent 2. Respondent 2 then accused the Petitioner and another of demanding money to file a 'B' ... report in the original case, leading to an FIR. The Petitioner denied demand or acceptance, arguing the complaint was vengeful. There was no trap, no recovery of money, and no direct conversation about the alleged bribe. The question arose whether proof of demand and acceptance of gratification is essential to prove an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, especially without a trap or recovery. Finally, the High Court, citing Apex Court judgments, held that proof of demand and acceptance is a sine qua non. Given no demand, acceptance, or recovery, and indications of vengeance, the FIR against the Petitioner was quashed. The Supreme Court previously upheld a similar judgment in a Writ Petition.