As per case facts, a complainant alleged that a Police Inspector demanded a bribe to close a case involving his son. After some payments, a trap was laid, and the ... Inspector was caught with marked currency. The Special Judge acquitted the accused, doubting the electronic evidence and the proof of demand. The State appealed this acquittal. The question arose whether the prosecution successfully proved the demand for illegal gratification, which is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, considering the trial court's doubts about electronic evidence and the adequacy of circumstantial proof. Finally, the High Court concluded that the trial court ignored vital direct and circumstantial evidence, including the complainant's testimony, panch witness statements, and the phenolphthalein test results, and misapplied the law regarding electronic evidence. The High Court found the demand proved beyond reasonable doubt, setting aside the acquittal and convicting the accused.