TRILOK CHANDRA MAURYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused/appellant was working as Joint Controller of Finance and Accounts (Factories), Ordnance Factory at Yeddumailaram, Medak District. By judgment dated 25.8.2004 in CC No.25 of 2001, the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad convicted the accused of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/ 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.20,000/- on both the counts separately. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed this appeal.

(2.) PW3 was Manager in Sri Shankarappa & Co., of which PW8 is the proprietor. Shankarappa & Co., filed tender and obtained order for lifting Brass and Bronze swarfs in lot Nos.11 and 13 of Ordnance Factory, Yeddumailaram. They had to lift those lots by 20.9.2000. But, they could not do so for their own reasons. Therefore, PW3 on behalf of Shankarappa & Co, gave Ex.P4 letter on 20.9.2000 to the General Manager of Ordnance Factory for permission by way of extension of time for three days to complete the work. It is alleged that the accused demanded for bribe of Rs.5,000/- from PW3 for giving extension of time of three working days, and asked him to pay the bribe amount at his house on 30.9.2000. In the meanwhile, PW3 came to know about the extension order on 25.9.2000 itself; and accordingly balance lot was lifted between 26.9.2000 and 28.9.2000. Subsequently Shankarappa & Co, applied for tender in respect of Bronze and Brass scrap (swarf) in respect of lot Nos.1 to 4 in Ordnance Factory and obtained the order in their favour. After lifting the scrap from lot Nos.1 and 2, when PW3's people were about to lift scrap in lot No.3, PW6/Additional General Manager of Ordnance Factory directed them to clear lot No.4 in the first instance and thereafter lift the material in lot No.3. According to the de facto-complainant /PW1, lot No.4 contained scrap with full of mud and waste material. Therefore, PW3 wanted to remove the scrap from lot No.3 before going to lot No.4. PW3 applied for such permission on 17.10.2000 and 18.10.2000 as per Exs.P7 and P8 letters. But, no response was received by PW3 to the said letters. When PW3 intended to meet PW6 on this subject, PW6 did not permit PW3 to meet him at all. Therefore, PW3 approached the accused in that regard. It is alleged that when PW3 contacted the accused, the accused reminded him of his earlier demand for bribe of Rs.5,000/- and informed PW3 that if the said amount is given, he would manage PW6 and get the problem of lifting the material from lot Nos.3 and 4 solved and would ensure permission and extension of time to lift the remaining material, and that the accused insisted for payment of bribe of Rs.5,000/- on 19.10.2000. With the said allegations, PW3 and PW8 together gave Ex.P1 report to PW5 Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I), Hyderabad. After issuing Ex.P11 F.I.R on the basis of Ex.P1 report, PW5 organised trap for the accused on 19.10.2000 itself. Before proceeding for the trap, pre-trap procedures were carried out in the presence of mediators including PW1 under the cover of Ex.P2 first mediators' report. PW1 was working as Officer in Andhra Bank, Somajiguda Branch during that time. It is alleged that the trap was successful and that the accused was caught red handed while in possession of MO1 tainted cash of Rs.5,000/-. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found that the accused was guilty of both the charges. In this appeal, it is contended by the appellant's Counsel that the prosecution could not prove necessary ingredients required under Section 7 or under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and that there was no official favour either promised or extended by the accused to PW3 in respect of the second contract of Shankarappa & Co, and that even with regard to the alleged demand for bribe in respect of extension of time relating to first contract, there is no payment of the alleged demanded bribe.

(3.) ANOTHER interested feature in this case is that the accused made specific endorsement on the proposal of the committee to give extension of time for three days, to the following effect.