Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint Ex.P1 are that one Jagadish Kumar P filed the complaint on 4.5.2011 stating that he is working as Contractor and also doing underground drainage work for East Coast Construction and Industries Limited ('ECCI' for short) at Byatarayanapura site office limits, Govindpura Nagawara Main Road. Project work of Rs.1.46 crores was sanctioned on 18.9.2010 at his service order No.7000887/1200019772. He started his work during third week of December 2010 and was inspected by Mr.Rangaswamy, Assistant Engineer, who was in-charge of the work project from BWSSB and Mr.Vijay Kumar, another Engineer from DHV for quality control. He has completed 30% of the work and has received advance payment of rupees Nine Lakhs in installments till then. For the release of rest of the payment through ECCI he need to get the checklist for the work done through Mr.Rangaswamy, Assistant Engineer and to sign the said checklists Mr.Rangaswamy, BWSSB Engineer is demanding bribe of 2% of the amount to be sanctioned. He started asking for bribe from 10th February 2011 and complainant met him in this regard several times and pleaded him to sign the check list, but he did not oblige. After this he spoke to ECCI Regional Manager and Project Manager and they told him that as per the procedure he has to get the check list signed by both the Engineers of BWSSB and DHV, as per the service order terms and conditions.

In the cross-examination he deposed that he does not know the outstanding bills of P.W.1 as on 5.5.2011. P.W.3 was inspecting the work for and on behalf of the company called DHV. He denied the suggestion that P.W.1 had no transaction with BWSSB. The accused was inspecting the work everyday on behalf of BWSSB. Instructions were not given by the accused to P.W.1 to execute the work as per the standard. He denied the suggestion that sub-standard work of P.W.1 was the reason behind non payment of the amount claimed in the bills. It was 10.30 p.m. on 5.5.2011 when he had been to the office room of the company of ECCI. He brought the rexin bag from the nearby office of ECCI to the office room where the accused was seated. Before he brought the bag to that office room P.W.3 had not arrived there. Before entering the office of the accused he along with P.W.1 entered the ECCI office. He denied the suggestion that with sole intention of false implication of the accused he kept rexin bag on the table. He further denied that accused did not instruct him to bring the rexin bag.

In the cross-examination he deposed that he was working as consultant for the company called DHVBV. That company was appointed by BWSSB for supervising and monitoring the project. His job was to place report to the said company. Afterwards, his report was being placed before the authorities of BWSSB. In the course of report he used to propose and suggest the quality of the work executed. Subsequent to his report, BWSSB authorities used to take up the matter for payment of bill amount. Earlier to 5.5.2011, he placed many log sheets stating that work executed is not satisfactory. Many show cause notices were issued to M/s.ECCI stating that work executed is of sub-standard. As such, payment was not made to ECCI by BWSSB. P.Ws.1 and 2 have nothing to do with his company. M/s.ECCI was giving notices to P.W.1 touching the nature of work. Except him there is no other person by name Vijaya Kumar connected to the execution of work. Nithyanand is the Regional Manager of M/s. ECCI. Nithyananda was very often telling him to improve the quality of work. Nithyananda and P.W.1 were not happy with his reports. The accused was not in the obligation to subscribe signature on his daily reports. P.W.1 was not happy with his reports. Official work of his company pertaining to P.Ws.1 and 2 was not pending.

33. The explanation offered by the accused clearly shows that he has not received the bribe amount and without bringing to his knowledge the said amount was kept in the leather bag. Even he has stated the reasons for not signing the checklist that the work executed by complainant was of sub-standard quality. The explanation offered by the accused under Ex.P8 gains support from the oral evidence of P.W.3 Vijayakumar, the consultant whose name is also mentioned by the accused in his explanation Ex.P8. The oral evidence of P.W.3 Vijayakumar about which also I have made reference shows that, since June 2005 he is the consultant for Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB), Bengaluru. In the month of May 2011 he was supervising the Sewage work of Nagawara and Hennuru within the limits of Byatarayanapura Town Muncipality, Bengaluru. After going through the quality of the work he used to report the same everyday to the concerned Engineers of BWSSB and also to the Team leader of the company in which he was working. At that time, the accused was working as Assistant Engineer, BWSSB, Byatarayanapura, Bangalore North Division. Accused was looking after the quality of the work. He further deposed that, on 5.5.2011 at about 11.00 a.m. he was in ECCI office, near Nagawara Traffic Junction. At that time he found P.Ws.1 and 2 and the accused in that office. He received a call to his cell phone and he was responding the said call outside that office. At that time, P.Ws.1 and 2 asked him to enter that office and went out of that office. He was in the process of entering the office. A person not known to him entered the office. Accused was inside that office. About 4-5 unknown persons also entered that office. He came to know that those unknown persons are Lokayuktha police staff.