The Mahendrakumar Chandulal Shah was employed as a Chief Draftsman
with the Central Railway. One M/s. Chromatography and Instruments Company with
whom the informant Rakesh Dhansukhlal Shah was employed as a store officer was
awarded contract for supply of dissolved gas analysers at Jhansi and Nagpur. In
pursuance to the tender floated by the Controller of Stores, Central Railway
Office, Mumbai, the purchase order of above two contracts came to be issued on
6.12.1994 and 16.1.1995 subject to inspection of machinery by one M/s. Rites
Limited, which company was employed by Central Railway for the purpose. It
appears that the tenderer requested the Stores Department of Central Railway
for inspection contending that the machineries were ready for use;
however, inspection was not taking place.
The
appellant allegedly contacted the informant on 18.3.1995 stating that his
efforts had yielded the contract to the tenderer and he must be paid a sum of
Rs.15,000/- in absence of the bribe, he allegedly threatened to ensure the
rejection of product during the inspection. The informant communicated to Shri M.K.Shingari, proprietor of the firm
above-named, who told the informant that the contract awarded to it on its own
strength and not as a result of favour by appellant and he was disinclined to
pay Rs.15,000/- to him. The informant was instructed to lodge the complaint.
The appellant allegedly again reiterated his demand telephonically on 19.3.1995
on which date he also talked to Shri M.K.Shingari. The appellant allegedly
agreed to accept Rs.10,000/- on 20.3.1995; i.e. before the inspection and the
remainder of Rs.5,000/- after inspection. Eventually FIR was lodged, trap was
laid, the appellant was trapped while demanding and accepting the illegal
gratification and the tainted money were recovered from the appellant.
The Special
Court Ahmedabad, held that conviction and ordering the appellant on conviction
under Section 7 of
the Act, he was awarded sentence of simple imprisonment for six months with a
fine of Rs.500/-; in default a simple imprisonment for two months and simple
imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default a simple
imprisonment for six months for the offences punishable under Section 13 of the
Act. The appellant to serve the sentence
for the offences punishable under Sections
7 and 13 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short "the Act of 1988")
is sought to be assailed in this appeal under Section 378(4) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.").
The High court does not find any reference to the ingredients constituting for offence under Section 13(1) of the Act, in the entire body of the judgment, except the operative part. In absence of the evidence establishing the offence under Section 13(1) of the Act, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. Accordingly the order convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 13(1) of the Act is quashed and set aside and the appellant is ordered to be acquitted there from. The conviction under Section 7 of the Act and the sentence for the same imposed by the trial court is upheld. The appeal partly succeeds qua Section 13(1) of the Act. The appellant-accused shall surrender for serving the sentence under Section 7 of the Act within six weeks, failing which he shall be arrested.
Post a Comment