THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.362 of 2004 BETWEEEN: State. Through Anti-Corruption Bureau … Appellant AND A.Ramachandra Reddy … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.362 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal against acquittal recorded by the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad by judgment dated 10.07.2003 in CC.No.22 of 1998 finding the accused/appellant not guilty of the offences under Sections 13(1)(c)/13(2) and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act). The accused was working as Deputy Transport Commissioner (Telangana area) in the Transport Department at Hyderabad. During the relevant time, the accused was nominated as nodal officer to receive indents from the unit officers of Telangana region for supply of stationery, forms etc. and to place a consolidated indent to the Commissioner of Printing, Stationery Stores, Purchase Department. When the accused addressed Ex.P2 letter to the Commissioner of Printing for Supply of 55 items, the Commissioner gave reply informing that due to urgent work, they are not in a position to supply the same and requested to make arrangements for printing required forms and registers by following due procedure and by meeting the expenditure from the budget allotted to the indent department. Ex.P3 No Objection Letter was issued in favour of the accused in that regard. The accused called for tenders as per Ex.P5 dt.13.07.93 from ‘A’ class printers for supply of registers and forms. After tenders are received, they were finalized and orders were placed accordingly for supply of registers and forms to the transport department. It is the prosecution case that there were several irregularities committed by the accused in the tender process and in placing orders for supply of forms and registers. 2. PW3 who was working as Additional Transport Commissioner was appointed as Enquiry Officer to make enquiry and to submit report on this aspect. After making preliminary enquiry, PW3 submitted Ex.P9 enquiry report. In Ex.P9 report, PW3’s findings are as follows: “10. The entire transaction as discussed above resulted in the following irregularities committed by Sri A.Ramachandra Reddy, Dy.Transport Commissioner (Telangana). (i) He has issued orders to supply paper and print the forms and registers at the cost of Rs.76,21,746-00 without any order and without budget sanction from the Government. (ii) He has not properly assessed the quantum required to print the 19 forms and Registers for emergency use. On the contrary all the estimates are highly exaggerative and unwarranted. (iii) He has floated tenders for printing forms and registers without any sanction of Government. (iv) He has not sent tender notices to all the ‘A’ class 52 printers registered with Government Printing Press and instead sent only to 9 printers. (v) He has selected the printer by name M/s Om Sai Laser Gaphics even though he was not a party to the tenders. (vi) He has not issued any tender notice for the supply of printing white paper worth Rs.40 Lakhs and instead asked the selected 5 printers to supply the paper and print the forms and registers. (vii) His entire action is unbecoming of him and may result as derogatory to the prestige of the Government.” 3. Thereupon, the matter was entrusted to Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) for investigation. After investigation, PW8 filed charge sheet before the lower Court against the accused after obtaining necessary sanction there for. During trial in the lower Court, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exs. P1 to P53, and DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D7 are marked on behalf of the accused. After thorough scrutiny of the material on record, the lower Court found the accused not guilty of the charges framed against him. 4. Main complaint of the prosecution against the accused is that he did not call for open tenders from all ‘A’ class printers but called for limited tenders from 9 of the ‘A’ class printers only. There are 54 ‘A’ class printers approved by the Government. In my opinion, at all stages, Ex.P5 tender notice was misconstrued as a limited tender notice. Relevant portion of the tender notice reads as follows: “ TENDER NOTICE Sealed tenders are invited from the ‘A’ class registered printers registered with the Commissioner of Printing and Stationery and Stores Purchase for the Printing of certain forms and Registers. The Printers are requested to produce ‘A’ class registration certificates issued by the Commissioners of Printing, Stationery and Stores purchase, A.P., Hyderabad for obtaining the tenders schedule without which the tenders schedule will not be issued.” 5. Language employed in the tender notice indicate that sealed tenders are invited from all ‘A’ class registered printers and it is not limited to any number of ‘A’ class printers only. Though it is an open tender, tender notice was specifically served on 9 printers located in twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. That fact would not convert an open tender notice to a limited tender notice. The tender notice was sent to not only the Transport Commissioner, A.P., Hyderabad, but also to the Commissioner of Printing, Stationery, Stores and Purchase, A.P., Hyderabad for displaying the same in their respective notice boards. Copy of the tender notice was also sent to the Secretary, Transport Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh for information. When there is publication of the tender notice in the notice boards of the Transport Commissioner as well as Commissioner of Printing etc. calling for sealed tenders from ‘A’ class printers, Ex.P5 cannot be termed as limited tender notice. It did not prevent any other ‘A’ Class printer than those 9 printers to whom tender notices were specifically served from applying for tender forms or for submitting sealed tenders. Therefore, basis of the prosecution case that the accused called for limited tenders from only 9 ‘A’ class printers is knocked off. 6. Further, at each stage of the process, the accused was informing to the Transport Commissioner seeking ratification of his action. Ex.P42 (Ex.D1) is ratification letter dated 10.09.1993 addressed by the accused to the Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad. The Transport Commissioner accorded ratification of the action relating to the tenders and finalization of tenders by Ex.P43 (Ex.D2). In Ex.P43, the Transport Commissioner fixed rate of paper as per the Government purchase rate, as orders were placed with the printers without supply of paper to them. The Commissioner of Printing, etc. in Ex.P4 letter dated 05.09.1994 addressed to the Transport Commissioner stated after scrutiny of details regarding printing of various forms and registers got printed by the Transport Department, came to the conclusion that except with regard to sizes, the printers have complied with the orders; and having regard to difference in sizes, the Commissioner of Printing suggested imposition of cut in price of forms and registers in detail in that letter. Accordingly, the Transport Commissioner made payments to the printers after imposing the cuts suggested by the Commissioner of Printing. The payments for registers and forms were made by the Transport Commissioner directly and not by the accused who was the Deputy Transport Commissioner. The said payments were made after the accused was transferred from Hyderabad to Nellore. The said payments were made within the budget allocation and after getting an approval of the same from the Government as per Ex.D4, G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 16.07.1994. Inspite of it, ACB intended to prosecute the accused for misconduct. The prosecution could not make out that by the action or inaction on the part of the accused, either the Government Exchequer suffered any loss or the accused wrongfully gained any amount. 7. Further scrutiny of the record disclosed that even though tenders were called for in respect of 59 forms and registers, the accused gave printing order only in respect of 5 registers and 19 forms. It is pointed out by the Special Public Prosecutor that even though the existing indents were only small in number from the unit officers, printing order was placed by the accused with the printers by several times of the existing indent. Such order was placed by the accused having regard to the future requirement of the department and not on the basis of existing indents from the unit officers. In case, orders are issued only in respect of the existing indents of the unit officers, then the accused will not be able to supply any forms or register to the unit officers in Telangana region as against their future indents. 8. It is contended by the Special Public Prosecutor that even though M/s. Om Sai Graphics was not an ‘A’ class printer and did not submit any tender in pursuance of Ex.P5 tender notice, the accused gave an order for printing of certain forms to M/s. Om Sai Graphics. As per Ex.P48, M/s. Om Sai Laser Graphics received cheque for Rs.1,31,243/- and Rs.1,93,097/-. The printing order given by the accused to M/s.Om Sai Laser Graphics was approved by the Transport Commissioner. The lower Court mainly placed reliance on approval or ratification of the action of the accused by the Transport Commissioner for relieving liability for the accused. It is not the prosecution case that the Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad also colluded with the accused in the transaction and ratified action of the accused in hand-in-glove with him. When the entire action of the accused was ratified by the Transport Commissioner and when the entire payments relating to this transaction are issued by the Transport Commissioner, the accused cannot be blamed for his activity. There was no financial impropriety on the part of the accused in this case, as no Government amount passed to the printers through the hands of the accused. Admittedly, the payments were made towards the paper cost as per the Government fixed rates to all the printers. The printing charges claimed by the printers were also approved by the Commissioner of Printing. In these circumstances, the lower Court rightly found the accused not guilty of the charges framed against him. 9. Before parting with this appeal, I would like to observe that the ACB has to make a distinguish between a case for charging before a Criminal Court and a case for departmental enquiry. Having regard to findings of the Enquiry Officer on the subject, it can be said that this may be a case for departmental enquiry for alleged violation of certain rules. In any event, the said violations were also ratified by the higher authorities in the transport department as well as in the printing and stationery department as well as the Government. Thus, the appeal fails. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 25.04.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.362 of 2004 DATED: 25.04.2011 ysk