Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.;

______ M The appellant:/accused convicted for offences punishable under sectiens 7 & 13(2) 0f the Prevention of Corruption Act, 3988 {for short, 'the Act') in Spl.C.C.No.}.27/1998, on the file of XXI Add1.4V§§:i't:;%.Qivi1 8: Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Bangalore, has preferred this appea}. 'A H I 3 T b

2. I have heard Sri 8.6.Bhagévag, I'e#i2';j:t§.(iV"c'f)':2V§1:;§Vf§i;f«;}r appellant/accused and Sri' for respondent/CB1.

3. In Vbriéf_, ceéisé o'f2.;irc>se.ciiti{3n and ceriain admitted facts are as f'{:eiV§'<§fi:.%s,"n.;§"-. V_ _V Du1L9ingVVthVe"V'--yé;1r '3:99'.?~98, the accuseci was working 1}-Igniégr Ex{gi:'1'eér {Civil} in M/sfeod Corpemtion of V ?Ex%idViTa"'{.f£Sr 'sIf6'r:, 'FCI'}, regional office situate at Mission Road, B'aA:1;;-'iiiare. The accuseé was in supervision {if constftgctian 0f F(3§ geséowms 3: various piaces. PW2~ Slizzwkath Ali Khan. was E-he prapriatsr af Mfs,ZSAK ,3 }/L7' -- {i~,[fi'°\._/-Mn§'\» '2/K65 9 K) 1 J Merchants, situate at No.7/2A, 6" Main Road, K.H.M.BIOck, Opp.R.T.Nagar 13.0., Banga1ore--58() 032. PW2 was dealing with pesticides and anti termite chemicals, During the year 199?, FCI had eaiied for tenders for supply of £840 Itrs., of anti termiie.e:heTa:jing chemical name "Chloropyriphes 20% lone tenderer and he had quQ£,.e€i__ Rs._--i.29;'~»;'_':;)er ltVr.=-_df~_ aforestated anti termite. The af;)re:_§;ta;.te'ed1e»<;u'afi€'i:ifV}§:V'eef V{&.1r_1:ti termite had to be delivereél "near fi~';..eV'site eicg/'\$Vtr&ietionVL' ef FCI go-down at 'I'umk:1r a:ii't?fV:a€:_cuse'ci«.v§*:as iflcharge of the said c(instruetien.. fZ'if1e'&._sa;p;f§.iy.ofefprestated quantity sf arfizi .<4:e:i&r:}:}:+iei;.é:J:<V:§V' some where in the month of De.ee:1iber"i'-i9»€37., 'i'--31e'*--c0'z1eernefi officers «of FCE viz, Deputy"=.IVIanager'"'.(}:2sr'igi:ieVeri:":g} and Assistant Manager {2'~'1(3:'("i{).'1_l'1tS).V 'beuizV1"g' safisfiezi wiih the sauppiy of afasiesieteci :g;--errr:ite, smxéez we finai biiie Hewevezz security V :.riepes§t 'e(§2a:i"11e$i.: Money Bepesgity 'fer eiaerfg, "'EEVE§}"} of ":v2s';*¢2,8o7ci';€';,.':imich 1ew:z me fiepegited' with Fe: when his tenéer was aecepteé on 96.10.1997 had met been refunded to him.

20. Before adverting E0 apprecizztiean of evifience of aforestated witnesses {P353 2 £0 7). it is r1ec4eV:§£;~;.a;_:é§"'3{_ to reiterate certain admitted facts, which upon the conduct and veracity of PW3.

21. PW2~Sh¢::Wkath Ah" '"iT§iE;1I"iI1§f4V' the month of {)ctobefi_ fifid'§~ffe;.»;:d tender for supply of 1840 ItV.'z'S::{3fA though market price efanti t§%A:'*;r:j.§fi::¢ itr" he haé quoted lewgsié pfi;'iiL€:<__~; of'Rs§. PW2 has eieposeei that "'d9g§S;- r1<:i'f:.;V:?em.c'rnbcr"wiiether he was the lone tenderer and' Eé13:'(;1':'"'3'.I"'»'g1K'»":£i:"':'-'~._ opened in his presence and it was a(:<:e1:§t43d in his Ap_r'e'3.,r;:mc£:. PW? has denieé guggggestimn thafifl-imv h.-.~1& in'fEiw1}_{:__<3<§ ami manage-ti with the marzageriai 'S%L"fi'ffVGfvF.C'I_ fG_£1CC€3p"§. his tender. The saié anti iermita c*hém'icaI xieasfiurchaseé fer cansiruction purpose. as per tenéier, was requiréafi :0 suppiy anti termiis am the vL.V:cC.;'1L§;4truV:§ti<)n site at Tumimr. FWQ has 3150 admittztd that t§1e ;é£c<:used was inchargiz fif canstructicxn Site £3? §<"{§3§ % building at Tumkur and he had to accept anti _:f,m'mite supplied by PW2. PW2 has denied suggesting?.i{héii;V he had intention to supply substandard, short supply of anti termitfi fio_ffCI. _--'I5W'2--:'j:aié'V Vdgnigdiib suggestion he had approached i';he :=_;éi'cc:i1si€:»<.i_i accept deiivery of sub~si=ai_:1'd§rd,iii suppiy of anti termite. --s:V1vf:rni<§ci«--Vi§i;.:ggcfi;vE;,ti0I1 that as the accused did p.i~'éj'p95ai, PW2 was pui to pecuniary 1955 to and for the said reaso2j1?__.:I3"\iJi_}?".¢'i£:. cI:i¢%;:§g'.;L)V.*:=,:>vcvi:'i.iirézsigeance against the accused. iiés éstigggestion because 01"

insissgdiidéi .2s§;i:>p1ieei genuine and agreed quantify: of Vaxiii te4:."rn_i':'a«::. J

22.3%. from t1'*l€'£3Yi'd£iFiCfi of PW2 it is clear thai: 22:': had . Zqugte.-(vi rai«e:dGf_anti termite: at R3129/~ per itr. as against H 'pi4e.v'aii?:niif_"L~z<Ii2s=.fi§;etl rate of RS.2-40/v per ltz'. Hmvever, it is no; méigiehéiear as to haw PW? had quoted R912?/~ per £tr.__WI:"ién market price was Rs.24(}/'~ per itr. Therefore '7?:I*i1i'e"£w0 inferenees that cmiié be drawn against 95!? are:~ fk? . <..{5'\« "~r*--C'J{.'~.-

26. When PW2 was fiirsitb information, he has; accep_.teAti__t'h,e sf first information that authorisation letter to PW7..'.PW/2 that he had deliberateiy§--gnefiiio1ie'd ii; the :15: ijifsormation that PW3 had i1atr1ic!.e_cVl'f- m?ej;f:'-ai::imrisé:'i'i'<;»i:1 letter t0 aecusefl to falsely. an pIi'c.a§t'e

27. frail": eigidence of WW2 it is clear ftixat he had Vfifzaefvquotedviiitiie price of anti termite when he hafi to FCX, The accused was irxcharge of ci3x';strLz<:.t:ii;§.:r1Aisite «of FCI at Yumkur. PW2 was deiivering anti ij'erf:i}ite in terms of eantract to the corisltruciieii site at"'Iflfumkur. It Iaaks probabie that price (if anti termite ; Q?' g.'\'.} ' /g 3 quoted by PW2 was grossly inadequate and V.:E._;;e {£3 insistence of accused to supply standard quality'-§§é:'f.e.:é1vz1ti termite, there were differences between th«é::é1cVe.uFSe"di PW2. -