VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

422 DECISION -169
jurisdiction and not otherwise illegal. It may be that in cases where
punishment is imposed out of all proportion leading to an inference
that the power has been exercised mala fide the court might step in.
If in a case for a minor irregularity, a Government servant is dismissed,
which punishment might shock the conscience of a reasonable man,
it cannot be said that the High Court will be overstepping its jurisdiction
to interfere with the punishment. However, in cases where for
substantial misdemeanours, an officer is dismissed or removed from
service the fact that the High Court might view the punishment as
harsh will not justify interference.
(169)
(A) Witnesses — turning hostile
(i) Discretion conferred by sec. 154 Evidence Act
on the court to treat a witness as ‘hostile’ is
unqualified and untrammelled and is apart from any
question of hostility.
(ii) Appreciation of evidence of hostile witness.
(B) Statement of witness under sec. 162 Cr.P.C.
— use of
(C) Cr.P.C. — Sec. 162
Statement of witness recorded by police during
investigation cannot be used for seeking assurance
for prosecution story.
Sat Paul vs. Delhi Administration,
AIR 1976 SC 294
The Supreme Court held that the discretion conferred by
sec. 154 Evidence Act on the court is unqualified and untrammelled
and is apart from any question of hostility. It is to be liberally exercised
whenever the court, from the witness’s demeanour, temper, attitude,