CHANDRAMAULIKR. PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE appellant, at the relevant time was posted as Deputy Chief Engineer, Railway Electrifications, South Central Railway. He was put on trial for commission of the offences under Section 7 and 13(1 )(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (here in after referred 'the Act'). Special Judge for CBI cases at Visakhapatnam by judgment and order dated 15.2.1999 passed in C.C. No. 17 of 1997 held him guilty of the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. THE appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the same he preferred appeal and High Court by its judgment dated 29.7.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 1999 had affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant and dismissed the appeal. AGGRIEVED by the same the appellant has preferred this appeal with the leave of the Court. According to the prosecution, the appellant at the relevant time was posted as Deputy Chief Engineer, Railway Electrification, South Central Railway, Vijaywada. P.W. 1, M. Venka Reddy (here in after referred to as the 'contractor'), during the years 1992-1994, was awarded the contracts of railway electrification between railway stations Bhongir and Sanathnagar and Maulali and Sanathnagar bypass under agreement No. 29 dated 3.4.1992 and agreement No. 41 dated 20.11.1992 respectively. Further by agreement No. 3 dated 18.10.1994 work to provide height gauges at railway crossing between Vijayawada and Gannavaran was awarded to him. According to the prosecution the contractor completed the works to the satisfaction of the railway authorities and in respect of the works covered by aforesaid agreement nos.29 and 41 he received the payment. The contractor also completed the work covered under agreement No. 3 dated 18.10.1994 aforesaid in the month of March 1995. The appellant was the competent authority to pass the bills and accordingly the contractor met him on 19.4.1995 and requested to finalise the bill. It is alleged that the appellant told to the contractor that he had passed the final bill and demanded Rs.3,000/- as illegal gratification and reminded the contractor that he did not pay any amount in respect of earlier bills. The contractor expressed his inability to pay the illegal gratification but the appellant insisted and asked him to bring the money on 20.4.1995 The contractor was not willing to pay the illegal gratification and accordingly he met the officials of the Central Bureau of Investigation and gave a written report (Exhibit P-1 dated 1995). Being satisfied with the bona fide of the allegation, a pre-trap exercise was undertaken by P.W.7, S.B. Shankar in which P.W.2, G.T. Kumar besides the contractor participated. P.W.2, G.T. Kumar at the relevant time was posted as Inspector of Central Excise and on the instruction of office Superintendent, he had gone to participate in the pre-trap exercise. It is alleged that the contractor alongwith the shadow-witness P.W.2, G.T. Kumar went to the office of the appellant but he asked the shadow-witness to go out of the chamber. Shadow witness left the chamber. However, contractor brought the shadow witness in the chamber and explained to the appellant that he is his financer. Despite that shadow-witness was asked to leave the chamber and he went out. Thereafter appellant demanded the money and the contractor handed over the tainted money to him, which he received from his right hand and kept in right side pocket of the trouser. A signal was given, whereupon P.W.7 S.B. Shankar, the Inspector along with his team entered in the chamber, apprehended the appellant and conducted sodium carbonate test on the fingers of both the hands and right trouser pocket of the appellant, which turned pink. The tainted notes were lying on the floor of the office, which were recovered. After usual investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted the charge-sheet and the appellant was put on trial, where he abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the charge, prosecution had examined altogether seven witnesses and got exhibited a large number of documents. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution P. W.1, M. Venka Reddy is the contractor, whereas P.W.2, G.T. Kumar is a shadow witness, P.W.7, S.B. Shankar, at the relevant time was Inspector of the Central Bureau of Investigation, who had conducted the pre-trap exercise and laid the trap in which appellant was apprehended after he had accepted the bribe. The plea of the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is of false implication due to enmity with the contractor. In order to prove the defence, he had examined D.W.1, Bodh Raj Sharma, Chief Administrative Officer, Construction as defence witness.
(3.) THE trial Court on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. While doing so it considered the defence version and rejected the same. Accordingly the appellant was convicted and sentenced as above by the trial Court, which has been affirmed in appeal by the High Court. Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there being strained relationship between the appellant and the contractor it is highly improbable that he would demand the illegal gratification from him. In this connection he has drawn our attention to the evidence of the contractor in his cross- examination wherein he had stated that as his bill was pending in the office of the accused, he entertained an idea to make complaint against the appellant. Our attention also has been drawn to the evidence of D.W.1, Bodhraj Sharma and the letter dated 11.3.1995 (Exhibit 2) written by the appellant to the Chief Engineer, in which he had stated that since he has flatly refused to clear the bill as per contractor's claim, he had threatened him to rope in some false case. In the aforesaid background, it has been highlighted that demand of illegal gratification alleged to have been made by the appellant is absolutely untrue. In support of the submission reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 Supp. SCC 266 and our attention has been drawn to the following paragraph of the judgment: "26. Therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution case is shaken to a great extent. The question as to the handing over of any bribe and recovery of the same from the accused should be considered along with other material circumstances one of which is the question whether any demand was at all made by the appellant for the bribe. When it is found that no such demand was made by the accused and the prosecution has given a false story in that regard, the Court will view the allegation of payment of the bribe to and recovery of the same from the accused with suspicion." ;