STATE OF A P Vs. R JEEVARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is against the judgment dated 10th December, 1997 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are as follows : The respondent was, at the relevant time, functioning as the Secretary of Visakhapatnam Port Trust. He was also a member of the Tender Committee. He was also officiating as the Secretary of the Board of Trustees of Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The Visakhapatnam Port Trust had floated a tender, in response to which one M/s. Ramesh Chandra and Compay had submitted a quotation for Rs. 1,33,84,702.80. The tender of M/s. Ramesh Chandra and Company was the lowest. The complainant one Mr. G. Subrahmanyam was the Manager and General Power of Attorney holder of M/s. Ramesh Chandra and Company. According to the prosecution, on 23rd December, 1991 the complainant was called to the house of the respondent. He was there informed that there were many complications in the tender and that in order to clear those complications a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- would have to be paid to the respondent as bribe. According to the prosecution, the complainant expressed financial disability in paying the amount and was told by the respondent that the amount could be paid in 5 installments. According to the prosecution, the respondent told the complainant that if the amount was not paid the file would not be cleared. According to the prosecution on 30th December, 1991, the complainant again met the respondent when he was told that at least a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had to be paid as an advance. The said amount of Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid on 31st December, 1991 in Hotel Apsara in Visakhapatnam. The complainant then reported the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation, who laid a trap. The respondent was caught coming out of the hotel room with marked currency totalling Rs. 10,000/- in a briefcase which was carried by the respondent.

(3.) The respondent was therefore prosecuted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses including the complainant and one Mr. M. Veerabhadrarao who was examined as PW-2, PW-2 was an absolutely independent witness who had acted as a Panch witness and who knew neither the complainant nor the respondent. PW-2 had no enmity with either party and it is not even alleged that he was trying to favour either party.