Important point
In a case under Prevention of Corruption Act, if any money is received and convincing, credible and acceptable explanation is offered by accused as to how it came to be received, presumption under the Act is available.

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—State of Andhra Pradesh questions legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondents who were accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively before the Trial Court i.e. Special Judge, CBI, Visakhapatnam. The respondents faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the ‘Act’). The Trial Court found each to be guilty and sentenced to undergo two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. They were also convicted under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the ‘IPC’), sentenced to similar custodial punishment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. But in appeal the conviction and sentence were set aside.

2. Factual position as highlighted by the prosecution is as follows :

C. Uma Maheswara Rao (A-1) was working as Deputy Secretary of Visakhapatnam Port Trust and D. Satyananda Reddy (A-2) was working as Depuy Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts­ Officer of Visakhapatnam Port Trust G. Subrahmanyam (PW-1) was the General Power of Attorney holder of M/s Ramesh Chandra & Company. Both the accused were members of Tender Opening Committee and were associated with the processing of tender file No. C1/BG/Sleepers/Risk/91. The file dealt with placement of purchase order for Assam Salwood Sleepers during the period from September, 1991 to December, 1991. Aforesaid Ramesh Chandra & Company through its power of Attorney holder (PW-1) submitted their quotation At Rs. 828/- per sleeper and the total tender value was Rs. 1,33,84,702.80. A-1 phoned to PW-1 on 28.12.1991 at about 11.00 a.m. and asked him to meet him in the evening at his residence for discussions with regard to tender matter and PW-1 went to his house at 8.30 p.m. on the same day and A-2 was also present there. Both the accused, who were Public Servants, during the discussion informed PW-1 that there were many complications in the tender file and demanded Rs. 20,000/- each to be paid as bribe to clear the file in favour of M/s. Ramesh Chandra & Co. They also told him that they would not clear the file, if he fails to meet the said demand and when PW-1 expressed his financial constraints, they said that they should be paid Rs. 5,000/- each as advance and balance amount was to be paid after release of the purchase order. A-1 had contacted PW-1 over telephone at about 12.00 noon on 30.12.1991 and asked him to keep the demanded amount ready so that he would come along with A-2 and collect the same around 8.30 p.m. on that day at Basant Lodge, Visakhapatnam. Thereafter, PW-1 lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Visakhapatnam on 30.12.1991 about the demand of bribe by the accused and on the basis of his complaint, investigation was taken up by registering a case i.e. R.C. No. 19(A)/91. Both the accused were caught red handed at about 10.15 p.m. on 30.12.1991 in Room No. 208 of Basant Lodge, Visakhapatnam soon after they demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs. 5,000/- each from PW-1 as a motive or reward for clearing the tender file in favour of M/s. Ramesh Chandra & Co. The tainted currency notes amounting to Rs. 10,000/- were recovered immediately from the polythene carry bag which was available with A-1. Both the accused abused their official position as public servants and after obtaining sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act, from the Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust a charge sheet was filed under Section 120B IPC and Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The accused denied their guilt. The prosecution in support of its case examined 32 witnesses while the accused to substantiate their plea of innocence examined 5 witnesses. PW-2 who was taken as witness to prove the acceptance and recovery of the money from PW-1 resiled partially from the statement given during investigation.

3. Placing reliance on the evidence