Contractor who gave bribe, therefore, can number be said to an accomplice as the same was extorted from him.
Further by agreement No.
The companytractor also companypleted the work companyered under agreement No.
Shadow witness left the chamber.
Both the substantive sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
3,000/ as illegal gratification and reminded the companytractor that he did number pay any amount in respect of earlier bills.
3 dated 18th October, 1994 work to provide height gauges at railway crossing between Vijayawada and Gannavaran was awarded to him.
PW 2, G.T. Kumar at the relevant time was posted as Inspector of Central Excise and on the instruction of office Superintendent, he had gone to participate in the pre trap exercise.
A signal was given, whereupon PW 7 S.B. Shankar, the Inspector along with his team entered in the chamber, apprehended the appellant and companyducted sodium carbonate test on the fingers of both the hands and right trouser pocket of the appellant, which turned pink.
According to the prosecution, the appellant at the relevant time was posted as Deputy Chief Engineer, Railway Electrification, South Central Railway, Vijaywada.
In order to prove the defence, he had examined DW 1, Bodh Raj Sharma, Chief Administrative Officer, Construction as defence witness.
Aggrieved by the same the appellant has preferred this appeal with the leave of the companyrt.
The tainted numberes were lying on the floor of the office, which were recovered.
According to the prosecution the companytractor companypleted the works to the satisfaction of the railway authorities and in respect of the works companyered by aforesaid agreement number.
Being satisfied with the bonafide of the allegation, a pre trap exercise was undertaken by PW 7, S.B. Shankar in which PW 2, G.T. Kumar besides the companytractor participated.
The companytractor was number willing to pay the illegal gratification and accordingly he met the officials of the Central Bureau of Investigation and gave a written report Exh.
3 dated 18.10.1994 aforesaid in the month of March, 1995.
Special Judge for CBI cases at Visakhapatnam by judgment and order dated 15th of February, 1999 passed in C. No.
The appellant was the companypetent authority to pass the bills and accordingly the companytractor met him on 19.4.1995 and requested to finalise the bill.
The companytractor expressed his inability to pay the illegal gratification but the appellant insisted and asked him to bring the money on 20th April, 1995.
It is alleged that the appellant told to the companytractor that he had passed the final bill and demanded Rs.
29 dated 3.4.1992 and agreement No.
The plea of the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is of false implication due to enmity with the companytractor.
It is alleged that the companytractor alongwith the shadow witness PW 2, G.T. Kumar went to the office of the appellant but he asked the shadow witness to go out of the chamber.
Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution PW 1, M. Venka Reddy is the companytractor, whereas PW 2, G.T. Kumar is a shadow witness, PW 7, S.B. Shankar, at the relevant time was Inspector of the Central Bureau of Investigation, who had companyducted the pre trap exercise and laid the trap in which appellant was apprehended after he had accepted the bribe.
P 1 dated 19th of May, 1995 .
499 of 1999 had affirmed the companyviction and sentence of the appellant and dismissed the appeal.
29 and 41 he received the payment.
After usual investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted the charge sheet and the appellant was put on trial, where he abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.
CHANDRAMAULI KR.
In order to bring home the charge, prosecution had examined altogether seven witnesses and got exhibited a large number of documents.
Accordingly the appellant was companyvicted and sentenced as above by the trial companyrt, which has been affirmed in appeal by the High Court.
PW 1, M. Venka Reddy hereinafter referred to as the companytractor , during the years 1992 1994, was awarded the companytracts of railway electrification between railway stations Bhongir and Sanathnagar and Maulali and Sanathnagar bypass under agreement No.
PRASAD, J. The appellant, at the relevant time was posted as Deputy Chief Engineer, Railway Electrifications, South Central Railway.
However, companytractor brought the shadow witness in the chamber and explained to the appellant that he is his financer.
Thereafter appellant demanded the money and the companytractor handed over the tainted money to him, which he received from his right hand and kept in right side pocket of the trouser.
41 dated 20.11.1992 respectively.
Despite that shadow witness was asked to leave the chamber and he went out.
Aggrieved by the same he preferred appeal and High Court by its judgment dated 29th of July, 2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No.
