VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION -103
337
unsatisfactory. On the date of the impugned order the respondent
had the right to hold his post; the impugned order deprived him of his
right and amounted to removal from service and could not be made
without following the constitutional requirements of Art. 311 of
Constitution. The impugned order was therefore invalid.
(102)
(A) Evidence — statement under sec. 164 Cr.P.C. can
be acted upon
(B) Cr.P.C. — Sec. 164
Statement under sec. 164 Cr.P.C. can be acted
upon, where circumstances lend support to the truth
of the evidence.
Ram Charan vs. State of U.P.,
AIR 1968 SC 1270
The Supreme Court expressed itself in agreement with the
following observations of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in In re
Gopisetti Chinna Venkata Subbiah, AIR 1955 Andhra 161 on the
evidentiary value of statements recorded under sec. 164 Cr.P.C. :
“We are of the opinion that if a statement of a witness is previously
recorded under sec. 164 Criminal Procedure Code, it leads to an
inference that there was a time when the police thought the witness
may change but if the witness sticks to the statement made by him
throughout, the mere fact that his statement was previously recorded
under sec. 164 will not be sufficient to discard it. The Court, however,
ought to receive it with caution and if there are other circumstances
on record which lend support to the truth of the evidence of such
witness, it can be acted upon.”
(103)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 17
(B) Trap — authorisation to investigate