CBI Vs. AS NARAYAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal, CBI challenges the impugned judgment dated 11th December 2015 acquitting the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'PC Act').

(2.) Briefly stated, prosecution case is that on 29th January 2009, V. Swaminathan, Jr. Vice President of M/s Titanium Taltalum Products Ltd, Chennai made a complaint against the respondent who was then working as Director (S&T) RAW, Cabinet Secretariat. As per the complaint, M/s Titanium Tantalum Products Ltd. was in the business of exporting a large number of items such as pressure vessels, reactors, heat exchangers, columns and parts manufactured out of Titanium, Tantalum, Nickel, Zirconium etc. For the purpose of export of the above-mentioned items export license was required from Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi (in short 'DGFT'). Since number of these items are of dual use that is they can be used for military purpose apart from the civil use, the clearance of a few government agencies such as Cabinet Secretariat is also required to clear the export license from the point of view of National Security. For this purpose, an Inter-Ministerial Working Group (in short 'IMWG') was in place which had representatives from number of different agencies. Their company had applied for export license with DGFT in the month of August-September 2008 for making export worth Rs. 4,50,00,000/- to Qatar, UAE. The export license was not received by them even after a lapse of 4-5 months because their proposal was not cleared by the Cabinet Secretariat. On 9th January 2009 the InterMinisterial Working Group had a meeting at Chennai. After the meeting was over the respondent informed him that the proposal of their company for export license could be cleared if he paid him a bribe amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-. Since then the respondent had been threatening him over the phone and during meetings, for payment of the bribe amount as early as possible. He further demanded that part of the illegal gratification be paid at Dubai.

(3.) During the verification proceedings telephonic conversation was recorded by Trap Laying Officer, Rajesh Chahal on 29th January 2009 to establish the demand of bribe of Rs. 8,00,000/-. According to the prosecution, at about 5:40 P.M., V. Swaminathan made a call from his mobile phone to the mobile of the respondent. The said conversation was recorded in the presence of independent witness with the help of Digital Voice Recorder and the same was heard simultaneously by the independent witness and the verifying officer. The recorded conversation revealed demand as well as the willingness to accept the illegal gratification of Rs. 8,00,000/- for the clearance of issuance of export license. The respondent asked V. Swaminathan to contact him the next morning to fix up the venue and time of transaction.