Delhi Court Acquits Man Accused Of Bribery

Rouse Avenue District Court recently acquitted G. Ravichandran, a public servant, of charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

As per the chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the accused Ravichandran had made demand of bribe to the tune of two lakh rupees while he was the Executive Director (Finance), Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi. It was alleged that the accused demanded bribe from the complainant in exchange for awarding the contract of Ground Handling Services to M/s Bright Shine Services of the complainant for Group D airports.

It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant was the CEO of M/s Bright Shine Services, Chennai, Tamilnadu. It was a partnership firm and it participated in the tendering process floated by Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi for airport ground handling tender for Group D airports. It was also alleged in the complaint that G. Ravichandran, Executive Director (Finance), Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi visited Chennai on 13.03.2019 and contacted the complainant. As per the chargesheet, G. Ravichandran demanded bribe from the complainant for awarding the contract to M/s Bright Shine Services of the complainant for Group D airports. It was also alleged that the accused further directed the complainant to come to Delhi and meet him personally. The complainant did not want to pay bribe and hence he lodged the complaint with SP, CBI, ACB, Delhi for taking legal action.

The Public Prosecutor representing the Central Bureau of Investigation argued that the prosecution was able to prove all the ingredients which are necessary to make out a case u/S. 7 of the PC Act  1988 as from the testimonies of witnesses. It was contended that all the ingredients for making out a case u/S. 7 of the PC Act, 1988 were made out i.e. demand, acceptance as well as recovery of bribe money on the date of trap, which is further corroborated by the recorded conversation recorded in the DVR, which was duly identified by the complainant and the other witnesses.

The counsel for the accused Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir argued that the accused was victim of a false case being initiated and orchestrated by a party, namely, Mr. Veeraraghavan/Mr. Veeraraghavelu acting through his company M/s Global Flight Handling Services Pvt Ltd. It was stated that the said party was aggrieved by the recommendations regarding interpretation of tender clause by Finance Directorate resulting in its disqualification for the award of ground handling contract for Chennai Airport. It was further contended that the accused had no role in the decision making process, the entire bidding process was done through E-portal and only after both H1 and H2 bidders were selected, the concerned file was put before the accused for financial concurrence. It was further argued that the sanction to prosecute the accused had been granted illegally without application of mind and suffered from several legal and factual inaccuracies.

The Court said that mere obtaining of some advantage without any intention to improperly perform public duty or forbearance to do so or by abusing his position as a public servant will not attract provisions of Section 7 of New Act. For this, the Court gave the illustration of a rolex watch. The Court said that, “Suppose a high ranking Minister ‘M’ purchases a very costly Rolex watch on credit from a high street store. The store owner ‘S’ generally does not sells such costly watches on credit basis, but thinking of his high influential position i.e. ‘M’ he sells the highly priced watch on credit to ‘M’ without ‘M’ promising any official act or forbearance or abuse of position in return. If ‘M’ does not later on pays for the watch, then same will not attract penal provisions of Section 7 of PC Act, 2018.”

The Court of Special Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal, observed that once the basic facts of the demand of illegal gratification and acceptance thereof were proven, unless the contrary was proven, the Court would presume that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated by Sec. 7 of the PC Act.

The Court, after delving into all the evidences adduced by the prosecution, held that since the prosecution could not prove the demand of bribe, which was the sine qua non for offence under Section 7 of PC Act, the accused deserved acquittal.

The Court, henceforth, acquitted the accused on account of the prosecution not being able to succeed in proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.