Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) 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, Visakha-patnam. 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 R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. They were also convicted under Section 120-B 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 Deputy Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer of Visakha-patnam Port Trust. G. Subrahmanyam (PW-1) was the General Power of Attorney holder of M/s. Ramesh Chandra and 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 and 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 and 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 and Co. The tainted currency notes amounting to Rs. 10,000/- were recovered immediately from the polythene carry bag which was available with A1. 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 120-B, 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 of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5, the trial Court held that there was cogent and credible evidence to show not only demand, acceptance but also recovery of the money. PW-3 was at the relevant time working as Preventive Officer, Customs and worked as the mediator. PW-5 was the Investigating Officer who received the complaint, and monitored the trap operation. In appeal, before the High Court the stand taken by the accused persons was that there was no cogent evidence regarding demand. PW-1 complainant was not reliable. The so-called complaint before the CBI is dated 20-12-1991. Specific stand of the prosecution was that the complaint was made on 30-12-1991 as per Exts. P-3 and P-3A. PW-2 who was one of the mediators did not support the prosecution version completely. It was not possible to accept that high ranked officers would take and accept money in the presence of an unknown party. There is no consistent evidence as regards the first and the subsequent demands. Since A-1 was not competent to finalise the tenders, it was not possible that he would demand money. Further the evidence on record clearly establishes that by the time of alleged demand files had been cleared by A-1 and, therefore, it is not believable that the demand was made. PW-1 in the guise of arranging a dinner took revenge on the accused persons for seeking legal advice before acceptance of the tender. With these observations, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence as noted above.;