As per case facts, a complainant filed a complaint alleging that the appellant, an Assistant Electrical Engineer, demanded a bribe for providing an electric supply line. Previous bribe payments were ... also alleged. A raiding party was formed, and the appellant was apprehended, with marked currency recovered. The appellant's defense contended false implication due to a prior criminal case against the complainant, suggesting the money was planted, and asserting that the electric connection had already been provided earlier. The question arose whether the conviction and sentence, based on concurrent findings by lower courts, were justified given the evidence. Finally, the Supreme Court found the lower courts' findings vitiated due to improper consideration and appraisal of evidence. The Court noted the absence of phenolphthalein powder use, which weakened the prosecution's case, and found the appellant's defense more probable, especially regarding his alleged absence from the office and the prior installation of the electric connection. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.