Back
2011 (2) ALD(Cri) 672
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
Trilok Chandra Maurya
Versus
State rep. by C.B.I, Hyderabad
Criminal Appeal No.2077 of 2004
Decided on : 14-07-2011
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 –Sections 7, 13(1)(d)/13(2), 20(1) –Bribe –P.W-3 was Manager in Sri Shankarappa & Co., of which P.W-8 is the proprietor. Shankarappa & Co., filed tender and obtained order for lifting Brass and Bronze swarfs in lot Nos.11 and 13 of Ordnance Factory –They had to lift those lots. But, they could not do so for their own reasons – Therefore, P.W-3 gave Ex.P-4 letter to the General Manager of Ordnance Factory for permission by way of extension of time for three days to complete the work – It is alleged that the accused demanded for bribe from P.W-3 for giving extension of time of three working days, and asked him to pay the bribe amount at his house With the said allegations, P.W-3 and P.W-8 together gave report to P.W-5. P.W-5 organised trap for the accused – It is alleged that the trap was successful and that the accused was caught red handed while in possession of M.O-1 tainted cash– It is contended by the Special Public Prosecutor that In the case on hand, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove demand on the part of the accused for bribe – Further, mere receipt of M.O-1 cash by the accused cannot be equated with acceptance of the said amount as bribe – Neither the accused demanded for any bribe from P.W-3 nor the accused received M.O-1 from P.W-3 as bribe – In so far as the second contract of P.W-3 is concerned, admittedly there is no official favour pending with the accused by the date of trap – It is evident that P.W-3 by handing over M.O-1 tainted cash to the accused who gave access to P.W-3 to meet him at his residence, involved the accused in a false trap – I find that there was no official favour pending with the accused either on date of demand for bribe or on of trap – Held, Court agree with the Special Public Prosecutor that the said defence is only an after thought and was introduced for the first time with D.Ws 1 and 6 in the trial Court – Court has no hesitation to agree with the trial Court that the defence put up by the accused in this regard is not established – Simply because one of the defences set up by the accused is disbelieved, it does not follow that it proved or probabilised the prosecution case – The prosecution has to fall or stand on the merits of its own case and its own evidence – As pointed earlier, in this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove not only demand for bribe by the accused but also acceptance of M.O-1 cash by the accused as bribe and also existence of any official favour with the accused either in respect of the first contract or in respect of the second contract of Shankarappa & Co – Lower Court did not scrutinize P.W-3’s evidence in analytical manner and landed in erroneous conclusion – Court do not agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the lower Court in this case – Court find that the prosecution has failed to prove both the charges against the accused – Appeal Allowed
1) The accused/appellant was working as Joint Controller of Finance and Accounts (Factories), Ordnance Factory at Yeddumailaram, Medak District. By Judgment dated 25.08.2004 in C.C. No.25 of 2001, the Special Judge for C.B.I Cases, Hyderabad convicted the accused of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.20,000/- on both the counts separately. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed this appeal.
2) P.W-3 was Manager in Sri Shankarappa & Co., of which P.W-8 is the proprietor. Shankarappa & Co., filed tender and obtained order for lifting Brass and Bronze swarfs in lot Nos.11 and 13 of Ordnance Factory, Yeddumailaram. They had to lift those lots by 20.09.2000. But, they could not do so for their own reasons. Therefore, P.W-3 on behalf of Shankarappa & Co, gave Ex.P-4 letter on 20.09.2000 to the General Manager of Ordnance Factory for permission by way of extension of time for three days to complete the work. It is alleged that the accused demanded for bribe of Rs.5,000/- from P.W-3 for giving extension of time of three working days, and asked him to pay the bribe amount at his house on 30.09.2000. In the meanwhile, P.W-3 came to know about the extension order on 25.09.2000 itself; and accordingly balance lot was lifted between 26.09.2000 and 28.09.2000. Subsequently Shankarappa & Co, applied for tender in respect of Bronze and Brass scrap (swarf) in respect of lot Nos.1 to 4 in Ordnance Factory and obtained the order in their favour. After lifting the scrap from lot Nos.1 and 2, when P.W-3’s people were about to lift scrap in lot No.3, P.W-6/Additional General Manager of Ordnance Factory directed them to clear lot No.4 in the first instance and thereafter lift the material in lot No.3. According to the defacto-complainant/P.W-1, lot No.4 contained scrap with full of mud and waste material. Therefore, P.W-3 wanted to remove the scrap from lot No.3 before going to lot No.4. P.W-3 applied for such permission on 17.10.2000 and 18.10.2000 as per Exs.P-7 and P-8 letters. But, no response was received by P.W-3 to the said letters. When P.W-3 intended to meet P.W-6 on this subject, P.W-6 did not permit P.W-3 to meet him at all. Therefore, P.W-3 approached the accused in that regard. It is alleged that when P.W-3 contacted the accused, the accused reminded him of his earlier demand for bribe of Rs.5,000/- and informed P.W-3 that if the said amount is given, he would manage P.W-6 and get the problem of lifting the material from lot Nos.3 and 4 solved and would ensure permission and extension of time to lift the remaining material, and that the accused insisted for payment of bribe of Rs.5,000/- on 19.10.2000. With the said allegations, P.W-3 and P.W-8 together gave Ex.P-1 report to P.W-5 Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I), Hyderabad. After issuing Ex.P-11 F.I.R on the basis of Ex.P-1 report, P.W-5 organised trap for the accused on 19.10.2000 itself. Before proceeding for the trap, pre-trap procedures were carried out in the presence of mediators including P.W-1 under the cover of Ex.P-2 first mediators’ report. P.W-1 was working as Officer in Andhra Bank, Somajiguda Branch during that time. It is alleged that the trap was successful and that the accused was caught red handed while in possession of M.O-1 tainted cash of Rs.5,000/-. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found that the accused was guilty of both the charges.
3) In this appeal, it is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the prosecution could not prove necessary ingredients required under Section 7 or under Section 13(1)(d) ofthe Act and that there was no official favour either promised or extended by the accused to P.W-3 in respect of the second contract of Shankarappa & Co, and that even with regard to the alleged demand for bribe in respect of extension of tim
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
