As per case facts, complainants alleged Assistant Engineer Prithvilal Meena demanded illegal gratification for a VCR penalty. A trap was organized, and tainted money was recovered from Hemraj also known ... as Foru, who allegedly accepted it on Prithvilal Meena's behalf. The trial court convicted both, leading to this appeal where appellants challenged the conviction citing hostile witnesses, unproven demand/acceptance, unreliable voice recordings, and improper sanction. The question arose whether demand and acceptance of illegal gratification could be sufficiently established through circumstantial and electronic evidence, despite complainants turning hostile, to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Finally, the High Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that despite hostile complainants, the prosecution successfully proved demand and acceptance using cogent circumstantial and electronic evidence, including voice recordings certified under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and recovery of the tainted money. The court emphasized that acceptance through an agent constitutes acceptance by the public servant, and the appellants failed to rebut the statutory presumption of guilt, thereby establishing a complete chain of incriminating evidence.