The prosecution failed to substantiate the charge under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act against the appellant (AO1). The evidence did not establish a demand for illegal gratification by AO1, and the prosecution's case relied heavily on inconsistent testimonies. Crucial corroborative evidence was missing, such as recordings of bribe demands and phenolphthalein tests. Independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's claims, and there were significant procedural irregularities. The appellant presented a plausible defense that the tainted money was planted to frame him. The appeal was allowed, and AO1 was acquitted of all charges.

1. Introduction

   • Lack of sufficient evidence to substantiate the charge.
   • Demand for bribe by AO1 not established.

2. Legal Principles and Evidence Appraisal

   • Importance of demand and acceptance of bribe.
   • Prosecution's reliance on testimonies of interested parties.

3. Failures in Prosecution's Case

   • No attempt to verify demand through recordings.
   • Inconsistencies in complainant's testimony.
   • Complainant handled the bag, allowing opportunity to plant money.
   • No hand wash test for phenolphthalein.

4. Lack of Independent Corroboration

   • No independent witnesses overheard the conversation.
   • Complainant's admission during cross-examination dismissed erroneously.

5. Defense and Reasonable Doubt

   • Appellant's plausible defense of being framed.
   • Lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt of demand and acceptance of bribe.

6. Conclusion

   • Appeal allowed.
   • High Court and trial court judgments set aside.
   • AO1 acquitted of all charges.
   • Bail bonds discharged.

Analysis of Material Prosecution Witnesses

1. Complainant (PW-1)

   • Leased saw-mill premises.
   • Claimed AO1 and AO2 demanded bribes.
   • Inconsistencies during cross-examination.

2. Companion Witness (PW-2)

   • Corroborated PW-1's account.
   • Ignorant about handling of the bag.

3. Panch Witness (PW-3)

   • Observed recovery of money but did not hear bribe demand.

4. Forest Beat Officer (PW-4)

   • Participated in raid; noted procedural details.

5. Nodal Officer (PW-6)

   • Call records contradicted PW-1's claims.

6. Divisional Forest Officer (PW-9)

   • Confirmed procedural aspects and fine collection.

7. DySP (PW-10)

   • Conducted trap proceedings; admitted procedural lapses.

8. Inspector (PW-11)

   • Assisted in trap; noted contradictions in witness positions.

Analysis and Conclusion

1. Contradictions and Inconsistencies

   • PW-1's account contradicted by call records.
   • Conflicting testimonies regarding the rexine bag.

2. Questionable Witness Associations

   • Suspicious involvement of M. Ashok.

3. Procedural Irregularities

   • DySP failed to verify crucial details.

4. Lack of Direct Evidence

   • No direct evidence of bribe demand.

Given the inconsistencies, lack of direct evidence, and procedural irregularities, the prosecution's case had significant weaknesses, leading to the acquittal of AO1.