VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 201
467
.... The observations that we have made in the concluding portion of
the order are of our comment not merely to the State of Maharashtra
but also the other States in the country and to the Union of India, that
we deem it necessary to direct that a copy of this judgment be sent
to the Home Ministry in the Government of India for suitable sensitised
measures to preempt recurrence of the error we have highlighted.”
(201)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Secs. 7, 13(1)(d)
(B) Trap — evidence of Investigating Officer
No need to seek any corroboration where the
evidence of police officer who laid the trap is found
entirely trustworthy.
(C) P.C. Act, 1988 — Secs. 7, 13(1)(d)
(D) Trap — evidence of panch witness
Veracity of a witness not necessarily dependent
upon status in life. Not correct to say that clerks
are less truthful and more amenable than superior
officers.
(E) P.C. Act, 1988 — Secs. 7, 13(1)(d)
(F) Trap — proof of passing of money
Not necessary that the passing of money should be
proved by direct evidence. It can be proved by
circumstantial evidence.
(G) P.C. Act, 1988 — Secs. 7, 13(1)(d)
(H) Trap — proof of receipt of gratification
Recovery of money coupled with other
circumstances can lead to the conclusion that
accused received gratification.
(I) Statement of witness under Sec. 162 Cr.P.C.
— use of