VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

340 DECISION -104
burden of proof on the accused under section 4 cannot be held to be
discharged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation offered
by him is reasonable and probable and it must be shown that the
explanation is a true one. The burden resting on the accused will be
satisfied if the accused establishes his case by a preponderance of
probability and it is not necessary for him to establish his case by the
test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellant further contended that sanction to prosecute
granted by Chief Medical Officer under section 6(1) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1947 (corresponding to sec. 19(1) of P.C. Act,
1988) is invalid as he was not the authority competent to remove him
from his office. No material was placed before the Court to prove
that C.M.O. is the appointing authority in respect of the appellant.
On this ground, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the
appellant.
(104)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 17
(B) Investigation — where illegal, use of statements of
witnesses
Illegal investigation does not render the statements
recorded therein illegal and such witnesses can be
cross-examined if they resile from such previous
statements.
(C) Evidence — of accomplice
(D) Evidence — of partisan witness
Evidence of accomplice needs corroboration for
conviction while no corroboration is necessary in
respect of evidence of a partisan witness.
Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave vs. State of Gujarat,
AIR 1968 SC 1323
The case was investigated by a Deputy Superintendent of