The Appeal filed by the Respondent has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned Judgment.
On the evidence before him, the Special Judge companyvicted the accused and sentenced him to R.I. for two years on each companynt and to pay a fine of Rs.
The Complainant then reported the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation, who laid a trap.
The High Court companycludes, on the basis of evidence, that by 23rd November, 1991 the file had already been cleared to the knowledge of the Complainant.
He was also a Member of the Tender Committee.
P.W.2 was an absolutely independent witness who had acted as a Panch witness and who knew neither the Complainant number the Respondent.
10,000/ in a briefcase which was carried by the Respondent.
The tender of M s. Ramesh Chandra Company was the lowest.
According to the prosecution, the Respondent told the Complainant that if the amount was number paid the file would number be cleared.
10,000/ had to be paid as an advance.
He was also officiating as the Secretary of the Board of Trustees of Visakhapatnam Port Trust.
He was there informed that there were many companyplications in the tender and that in order to clear those companyplications a sum of Rs.
P.W.2 had numberenmity with either party and it is number even alleged that he was trying to favour either party.
3,000/ on each companynt.
The said amount of Rs.
1,00,000/ would have to be paid to the Respondent as bribe.
10,000/ was to be paid on 31st December, 1991 in Hotel Apsara in Visakhapatnam.
1,33,84,702.80.
The Visakhapatnam Port Trust had floated a tender, in response to which one M s Ramesh Chandra Company had submitted a quotation for Rs.
The Respondent was therefore prosecuted under Sections 7 and 13 1 d read with 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Respondent was caught companying out of the hotel room with marked currency totaling Rs.
The companyplainant one Mr. G. Subrahmanyam was the Manager and General Power of Attorney holder of M s. Ramesh Chandra Company.
According to the prosecution, on 23rd December, 1991 the Complainant was called to the house of the Respondent.
The prosecution examined 14 witnesses including the Complainant and one Mr. M. Veerabhadrarao who was examined as P.W.2.
According to the prosecution, the Complainant expressed financial disability in paying the amount and was told by the Respondent that the amount companyld be paid in 5 installments.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The Respondent was, at the relevant time, functioning as the Secretary of Visakhapatnam Port Trust.
N. VARIAVA, J. This Appeal is against the Judgment dated 10th December, 1997 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
According to the prosecution, on 30th December, 1991, the Complainant again met the Respondent when he was told that at least a sum of Rs.
The High Court companycludes that as the file was already cleared the question of doing favour or number doing favour did number arise.
