As per case facts, the accused, a Security Officer, was convicted for demanding illegal gratification from a retired Security Supervisor for forwarding his pension file. A complaint led to a ... raid where the accused allegedly accepted a partial payment. The appellant appealed the conviction, challenging the prosecution's sanction, the complainant's credibility due to prior disciplinary issues and alleged threats, inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the demand and language used, and procedural lapses in the recovery and chain of custody. The question arose whether the prosecution established the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant inconsistencies and procedural concerns. Finally, the High Court found the complainant's claim of demand highly doubtful, especially considering the testimonies of loyal prosecution witnesses who contradicted key aspects of the prosecution's narrative, such as the initial meeting where the demand was allegedly made and the feasibility of processing the pension file. Moreover, doubts about the sanction for prosecution and the complainant's own questionable conduct further weakened the case. Therefore, the accused was granted the benefit of doubt, and the appeal was allowed.