VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

440 DECISION -182
appellant’s conduct in not taking any action for realisation of the fine,
they concluded that he did not do so because the fine had been
realised and the amount had been embezzled by him.
(182)
Evidence — of Investigating Officer
Evidence of Investigating officers be assessed on
its intrinsic worth and not discarded merely on the
ground that they are interested.
State of Kerala vs. M.M. Mathew,
AIR 1978 SC 1571
The Supreme Court held that the courts of law have to judge
the evidence before them by applying the well recognized test of
basic human probabilities. The evidence of the investigating officers
cannot be branded as highly interested on ground that they want that
the accused are convicted. Such a presumption runs counter to the
well recognised principle that prima facie public servants must be
presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence
has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded
merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested
in the success of their case.
(183)
Evidence — of accomplice
Evidence of accomplice can be relied upon in
departmental inquiries.
C.J. John vs. State of Kerala,
1979(1) SLR KER 479
The petitioner was a Regional Drugs Inspector at Calicut in
1966. A departmental inquiry was held and he was reverted to the
lower post of a Drugs Inspector. The petitioner contended before