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 25.08.2004 in C.C. 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.) P.W-3 was Manager in Sri Shankarappa & Co., of which P.W-8 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 20.09.2000. But, they could not do so for their own reasons. Therefore, P.W-3 on behalf of Shankarappa & Co, gave Ex.P-4 letter on 20.09.2000 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 P.W-3 for giving extension of time of three working days, and asked him to pay the bribe amount at his house on 30.09.2000. In the meanwhile, P.W-3 came to know about the extension order on 25.09.2000 itself; and accordingly balance lot was lifted between 26.09.2000 and 28.09.2000. 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 P.W-3's people were about to lift scrap in lot No.3, P.W-6/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 defacto-complainant/P.W-1, lot No.4 contained scrap with full of mud and waste material. Therefore, P.W-3 wanted to remove the scrap from lot No.3 before going to lot No.4. P.W-3 applied for such permission on 17.10.2000 and 18.10.2000 as per Exs.P-7 and P-8 letters. But, no response was received by P.W-3 to the said letters. When P.W-3 intended to meet P.W-6 on this subject, P.W-6 did not permit P.W-3 to meet him at all. Therefore, P.W-3 approached the accused in that regard. It is alleged that when P.W-3 contacted the accused, the accused reminded him of his earlier demand for bribe of Rs. 5,000/- and informed P.W-3 that if the said amount is given, he would manage P.W-6 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, P.W-3 and P.W-8 together gave Ex.P-1 report to P.W-5 Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I), Hyderabad. After issuing Ex.P-11 F.I.R on the basis of Ex.P-1 report, P.W-5 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 P.W-1 under the cover of Ex.P-2 first mediators' report. P.W-1 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 M.O-1 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.

(3.) ANOTHER interesting thing in this case is that the accused was not the authority to pass any order granting extension of time in respect of the work being executed by Shankarappa & Co. It was the General Manager who is competent to make such extension of time. It is evidence of P.W-2/ Junior Works Manager, Maintenance and P.W-6/Additional General Manager that the General Manager constituted a committee consisting of Additional General Manager (Engineering), Additional General Manager (Material DCDA), Divisional Officer of E.M.M Section and General Manager himself. As head of the accounts section, the accused was also included in that committee. It is their evidence that the committee took decision to grant extension of three days time to Shankarappa & Co, for lifting entire material in two lots covered by the first work and that the General Manager made an endorsement of approval on Ex.P-5 letter of proposal to grant three days time by the Committee and that the letter was finally signed by the General Manager on 22.09.2000 itself. Thus, by the date of alleged demand on 25.09.2000, the subject matter was not pending either with the accused or with any officer or committee of Ordnance Factory as request of P.W-3 representing Shankarappa & Co was acceded by the Committee headed by the General Manager on 22.09.2000 itself.