Case: State Of A.P Vs. C. Uma Maheswara Rao

C. Uma Maheswara Rao (A-1) was working as Deputy Secretary of Visakhapatnam Port Trust and D. Satyananda Reddy (A-2) was working as Deputy Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer of Visakhapatnam Port Trust G. Subrahmanyam (PW-1) was the General Power of Attorney holder of M/s. Ramesh Chandra & Company. Both the accused were members of Tender Opening Committee and were associated with the processing of tender file No. C1/BG/Sleepers /Risk/91. The file dealt with placement of purchase order for Assam Salwood Sleepers during the period from September, 1991 to December, 1991. Aforesaid Ramesh Chandra & Company through its power of Attorney holder (PW-1) submitted their quotation at Rs. 828/- per sleeper and the total tender value was Rs. 1,33,84,702.80. A-1 phoned to PW-1 on 28.12.1991 at about 11.00 a.m. and asked him to meet him in the evening at his residence for discussions with regard to tender matter and PW-1 went to his house at 8.30 p.m. on the same day and A-2 was also present there. Both the accused, who were Public Servants, during the discussion informed PW-1 that there were many complications in the tender file and demanded Rs. 20,000/- each to be paid as bribe to clear the file in favour of M/s. Ramesh Chandra & Co. They also told him that they would not clear the file, if he fails to meet the said demand and when PW-1 expressed his financial constraints, they said that they should be paid Rs. 5,000/- each as advance and balance amount was to be paid after release of the purchase order. A-1 had contacted PW-1 over telephone at 12.00 noon on 30.12.1991 and asked him to keep the demanded amount ready so that he would come along with A-2 and collect the same around 8.30 p.m. on that day at Basant Lodge. Visakhapatnam. Thereafter, PW-1 lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Visakhapatnam on 30.12.1991 about the demand of bribe by the accused and on the basis of his complaint, investigation was taken up by registering a case i.e. R.C. No. 19(A) /91. Both the accused were caught red handed at about 10.15 p.m. on 30.12.1991 in Room No. 208 of Basant Lodge, Visakhapatnam soon after they demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs. 5,000/- each from PW-1 as a motive or reward for clearing the tender file in favour of M/s. Ramesh Chandra & Co. The tainted currency notes amounting to Rs. 10,000/- were recovered immediately from the polythene carry bag which was available with A-1. Both the accused abused their official position as public servants and after obtaining sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act, from the Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust a charge sheet was filed under Section 120B IPC and Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The accused denied their guilt. The prosecution in support of its case examined 32 witnesses while the accused to substantiate their plea of innocence examined 5 witnesses. PW-2 who was taken as witness to prove the acceptance and recovery of the money from PW-1 resiled partially from the statement given during investigation.3. Placing reliance on the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5, the Trial Court held that there was cogent and credible evidence to show not only demand, acceptance but also recovery of the money. PW-3 was at the relevant time working as Preventive Officer, Customs and worked as the mediator. PW-5 was the investigating officer was received the complaint, and monitored the trap operation. In appeal, before the High Court the stand taken by the accused persons was that there was no cogent evidence regarding demand. PW-1 complainant was not reliable. The so-called complaint before the CBI is dated 20.12.1991. Specific stand of the prosecution was that the complaint was made on 30.12.1991 as per Exts. P-3 and P-3A. PW-2 who was one of the mediators did not support the prosecution version completely. It was not possible to accept that high ranked officers would take and accept money in the presence of an unknown party. There is no consistent evidence as regards the first and the subsequent demands. Since A-1 was not competent to finalise the tenders, it was not possible that he would demand money. Further the evidence on record clearly establishes that by the time of alleged demand files had been cleared by A-1 and, therefore, it is not believable that the demand was made. PW-1 in the guise of arranging a dinner took revenge on the accused persons for seeking legal advice before acceptance of the tender. With these observations, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence as noted above.

Reasoning: 27. The evidence of PW-1 cannot be ignored on the ground that he had earlier made grievances against some other officials. The Trial Court had carefully analysed his evidence and found the same to be credible. Even if PW-2 did not support the prosecution version on some aspects yet his evidence also prove giving of money. The Evidence of PW-1 coupled with those of PWs 3 and 5 is sufficient to bring home the accusations. Further, the High Court seems to have made out a new case about the alleged date of complaint. A bare reading of the contents of the complaint and the date put in the complaint as evident from Exts. P-3 and P-3A clearly show that the High Court was not correct in saying that the date of the document is 20.12.1991. Additionally, this plea was not raised before the Trial Court. There was even no suggestion about that aspect. Learned counsel for A-1 and A-2 submitted that suggestions were there which is not so. What was suggested was the documents were not prepared at the time they were claimed to be. There is a gulf of difference between time and date. In any event such a plea has not been taken before the courts below. It being essentially a question of fact, the High Court could not have made out a new case regarding correctness of the date. As noted above, the views of the High Court were also not correct when the document is itself looked at. Much stress was laid on the accused persons not being the final authority in the tender matter. As noted in Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel vs. The State of Gujarat (1976) (3) SCC 46 ) the question whether a person has authority to do the act for which bribe is accepted is of no consequence.28. Keeping in view the legal principles as can be culled out from decisions referred to above, applying the fact situation to them the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court was not justified in directing acquittal. Not only the correct legal position was not kept in view but the analysis of the factual position is also found to be erroneous. That being so, the judgment of the High Court is set aside. Custodial sentence of one year for each of the proved offence would meet the ends of justice, with the fine and default stipulation stipulated by the Trial Court.