As per case facts... The trial court convicted the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting a bribe. The High Court, however, acquitted the accused, finding ... that the demand was not established due to the complainant's prevaricating deposition and the non-examination of a key independent witness. The State appealed this acquittal to the Supreme Court. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the demand for illegal gratification by the public servant was sufficiently proven, despite the complainant's inconsistent testimony and the absence of a direct offer from the bribe giver, to establish guilt under the relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Finally, the Supreme Court held that despite the complainant's hostile deposition and inconsistencies, the creditworthy portions of his evidence, corroborated by an independent witness and the trap officer, along with the proven acceptance of money and the accused's false explanation, sufficiently established the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The Court emphasized that a hostile witness's testimony should be scrutinized to find creditworthy parts. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acquittal and restored the trial court's conviction, affirming that the statutory minimum sentence was appropriate.