ORDER 1. Leave granted. The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.7.2014 passed by the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 969 of 2011. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the conviction of the Appellant for offences punishable Under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short 'the Act') was affirmed and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. The case of the prosecution is that one V. Nagabhushan, was on medical leave and was subsequently unauthorizedly absent. He wanted his pay to be sanctioned for the period that he was on medical leave and while he was unauthorizedly absent. The Appellant is alleged to have agreed to do the needful but demanded bribe of Rs. 3,000/- for obliging Nagabhushan. 4. In view of the alleged demand made by the Appellant, Nagabhushan made a complaint to the office of the Lokayuktha on 26th December, 2006. 5. Thereafter, in association with the office of the Lokayuktha and the Lokayuktha police, a trap was laid in which Nagabhushan was to pay the bribe amount to the Appellant in the presence of a shadow witness Ashwathnarayana. A micro tape recorder was given to Ashwathnarayana to record the proceedings when the bribe was being paid to the Appellant. 6. As per the pre-arranged procedure decided by the Lokayuktha police, the complainant Nagabhushan and the Ashwathnarayana went to the office of the Appellant and on his demand paid him the bribe. Thereupon Nagabhushan gave a signal to the raiding party which apprehended the Appellant and conducted proceedings relating to the trap laid out. A mahazar was also drawn up which included the contents of the micro tape recorder and after recording the proceedings a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. On these facts a prosecution was lodged against the Appellant and the trial Court found the Appellant guilty of an offence under the Act and sentenced him. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant preferred a criminal appeal which came to be dismissed by the High Court thereby affirming the decision of the trial Court. It is, in these circumstances that the Appellant is before us. 8. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant preferred a criminal appeal which came to be dismissed by the High Court thereby affirming the decision of the trial Court. It is, in these circumstances that the Appellant is before us. 8. It is submitted that even though the proceedings took place on or about 26.12.2006, the complainant Nagabhushan was not examined by the prosecution for as long as five years and ultimately the complainant is reported to have died on 3.8.2011. That apart, it is submitted that P.W. 1 Ashwathnarayana admitted in his cross-examination that he did not hear the conversation that took place between the complainant Nagabhushan and the Appellant. To make matters worse, it is admitted that the micro tape recorder was not produced before the trial Court. Finally, it is submitted that the treated currency notes and which were said to have been accepted as a bribe by the Appellant were lost and were not produced before the trial Court. 9. We have gone through the evidence with the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties and also heard them in considerable detail. 10. The admitted position is that the complainant Nagabhushan died during the pendency of the proceedings and was not examined by the prosecution for as long as five years. It is not clear why the complainant Nagabhushan was not examined for such a long time. But be that as it may, the person who could have confirmed the demand for a bribe by the Appellant, that is, P.W. 1 Ashwathanarayana stated in his cross-examination that he did not hear any conversation between the complainant and the Appellant. Consequently, there is no evidence on record to show that there was any demand of bribe made by the Appellant. 11. It is on record that entire conversation that took place between the complainant Nagabhushan and the Appellant was recorded on a micro tape recorder and the conversation was actually transcribed in a mahazar but the micro tape recorder was not produced before the trial Court to confirm the transcription. This could have been used to confirm the demand for a bribe but was not produced by the prosecution for reasons best known to it. 12. In the circumstances, there is absolutely no evidence on record to indicate that the Appellant had demanded a bribe from the complainant Nagabhushan for sanctioning the salary said to have been due to him. This could have been used to confirm the demand for a bribe but was not produced by the prosecution for reasons best known to it. 12. In the circumstances, there is absolutely no evidence on record to indicate that the Appellant had demanded a bribe from the complainant Nagabhushan for sanctioning the salary said to have been due to him. 13. We may note that from the judgment under appeal it is clear that it was submitted by the Appellant before the High Court that the micro tape recorder was not produced before the trial Court and the effect of this was also submitted before the High Court. Yet there is no finding given by the High Court in this regard. In fact this submission has been completely glossed over by the High Court. We also find that the High Court has considered only the examination-in-chief of P.W. 1 Ashwathanarayana but has not considered his cross-examination to the effect that he did not hear the conversation between the complainant Nagabhushan and the Appellant. 14. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in upholding the conviction of the Appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the High Court and accordingly conviction of the Appellant is set aside. We make it clear that the observations made in the criminal case filed against the Appellant will not have any effect on the pending departmental proceedings against the Appellant. The Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.