As per case facts, the appellant, a Sub Inspector, was accused of demanding and accepting illegal gratification from an individual (PW4) to favor him in a criminal case. A complaint ... led to a trap operation where the appellant allegedly received marked currency notes and, upon apprehension, threw them out of his office window. An independent witness (PW3) recovered the money, and both the appellant's and PW3's hand washes tested positive for phenolphthalein. An audio recording of the demand was also presented. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing the complainant was unreliable and that it was impossible to dispose of the money while being held. The appeal proceeded even after the appellant's death due to the imposed fine. The question arose whether the trial court's judgment of conviction and sentence had any infirmity. Finally, the court found the prosecution's evidence credible, noting that minor discrepancies did not weaken the case. It emphasized the independent witness's testimony and the positive chemical tests. The court affirmed that a complainant's history or an unauthorized investigation does not automatically invalidate a case without proven prejudice, dismissing the appeal.