ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Rajan K. Chaurasia, learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh. The respondent (accused) is represented by Ms. Yasha Goyal and Mr. Kunal Verma, learned counsel. 2. In this appeal, the State challenges the order dated 09.08.2012 in the Criminal Appeal No. 287 of 2006 whereunder the respondent’s conviction by the learned Special Judge, Dewas under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was set aside by the High Court and his acquittal was ordered. 3. This was a trap case of the year 2002 when the respondent was working as a District Organizer at the Tribal Welfare Department, Dewas. The allegation against him was that he was demanding and accepting illegal gratification other than legal remuneration. 4. The complainant in the case, Samandar Singh, died during the trial and his evidence could not be recorded. The conviction however was primarily based on the testimony of Narayan Singh (PW-1). 5. The High Court in the impugned judgment dated 09.08.2012 referred to the conversation from the tape recorder between the original complainant Samandar Singh and the accused and concluded that the conversation is not found audible and the recording in the tape recorder cannot be the substantial basis for supporting the case of the prosecution. 6. In the context of the evidence of PW-1, the Court noted that his evidence on the bribe demand is contradictory and therefore it was concluded that the demand of bribe was not established. The Court further noted that there is no corroboration of evidence of PW-1 since no witness of the trap party accompanying the original complainant nor the PW-1 was with him, at the time when money was allegedly demanded and paid to the accused. Thus, the demand of bribe and acceptance of the same by the accused, the two essential ingredients for the bribe case, have not been proved by the prosecution in this case. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and adverted to the basis of the acquittal verdict of the High Court, favouring the respondent. No ground is made out to upset the said verdict. The appeal accordingly is dismissed.