STATE Vs. K. RAGHURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment dated 14.02.2005 in C.C.No.62 of 2000 passed by the learned Special Judge for ACB cases, Visakhapatnam acquitting the Accused Officer (AO) of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short PC Act) the ACB preferred the instant Criminal Appeal.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is thus:

(3.) IMPUGNING the judgment, learned Spl.P.P argued that in this case the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the corroborating evidence of PWs.2 to 4 would clearly show that the AO demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.1000/ - from PW1 to do an official favour of allowing him to sell the pesticide product of M/s.Sujanil Chemico Industries, Pune without licence. Expatiating it, he argued that on 01.09.1995 when PW.1 went to the office of the Joint Director (Agriculture), Visakhapatnam and submitted a representation (Ex.P.9) that licence was issued to him to sell pesticides of only one company i.e., Pest Control (India) Limited, Bombay, though he applied for licence for two companies i.e., Pest Control (India) Limited, Bombay and M/s. Sujanil Chemico Industries Limited, Pune and requested to issue licence for the other company also and in that context when he met the AO who is the Agricultural Officer, the AO informed him that the licence was not issued by the Joint Director because the Principal Certificate of M/s. Sujanil Chemico Industries Limited, Pune was expired and asked him to address a letter to M/s. Sujanil Chemico Industries Limited, Pune requesting to send their Principal Certificate to the office of Director, Agriculture, A.P, Hyderabad. On that when PW1 represented to him that this would take long time, then AO informed him that since the matter was under correspondence with Sujanil company, there would be no problem for him to sell the products of that company pending issuance of licence and since the AO himself has to check the shop of PW1, he would not book any case against him in this regard and for that purpose initially he demanded Rs.5000/ - as bribe and on the request of PW1, reduced the same to Rs.1000/ -. Learned Spl.P.P further argued that on the date of trap i.e., on 25.09.1995 also AO demanded the said amount and accepted from PW1 and the tainted bribe amount of Rs.1000/ - was recovered from rexine bag of AO (MO5) and chemical test conducted on his hands also proved positive which implies that he demanded and accepted the bribe amount. In the light of these facts, the presumption under section 20 of P.C. Act would squarely follow against the AO. He further argued that the defence explanation in this regard is quite a misfit to the facts and circumstances of the case and hence the trial Court ought not to have accepted the same. He argued that during the trap, the AO no doubt has offered explanation as if PW.1 paid him Rs.1000/ - towards challans licence fees and he too received the same for the said purpose but not as bribe. However this explanation, learned Spl.P.P. argued, is quite untenable because by the date of trap and even by the date of demand no challan fee for pesticide licence was due from PW1 as he already paid challan fee of Rs.300/ - vide Ex.P.4. As per the evidence of PW.3, one licence fee of Rs.300/ - is sufficient to issue licence for any number of companies and as PW.1 already paid licence fee under Ex.P.4, there was no need for him to pay any amount for obtaining licence for selling the pesticide of M/s. Sujanil Chemico Industries Limited, Pune. Therefore, the explanation of AO that PW.1 paid him Rs.1000/ - towards licence fee and he received the same for that purpose is unbelievable. He further argued that even assuming that PW.1 was again required to pay licence fee for selling the products of M/s. Sujanil Chemico Industries Limited, Pune, he would have to pay only Rs.300/ - for that purpose but not Rs.1000/ -. Therefore, there was no necessity for PW.1 to pay Rs.1000/ - to AO. However, the amount received by AO was Rs.1000/ - which implies that the said Rs.1000/ - is only bribe amount but not the licence fee. Therefore, the explanation is not correct.