VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 291
605
place him for trial. Such mahazars cannot take the place of
substantive evidence, but they merely corroborate the substantive
evidence given before court as a previous statement under sec. 157
of the Evidence Act. A plan prepared during investigation and signed
by the maker is not done to evade the provisions of sec. 162 Cr.P.C.
and it can be used for corroborating his evidence in the box as a
contemporaneous record from which he could refresh his memory.
In order that a previous statement under sec. 157 of the Evidence
Act should also fall under sec. 162 Cr.P.C., it must be a statement
made to a police officer and must have been made in the course of
investigation. When the primary and essential purposes of mahazars
are taken into account it is not possible to say that the mahazar
witnesses intended an element of communication to the police officer.
They are asked to witness certain things and what is done is only
making a contemporaneous record of what they saw and heard. There
is a distinction between narration made to a police officer with a view
to communicate or impart knowledge and a mere record of what the
witnesses saw and heard which is intended as a contemporaneous
record. The mere fact that the record was made by the police officer
on hearing from the witnesses will not make any difference. But if the
mahazar contains statements intended as narration to the police officer
during investigation it will be hit by sec. 162 Cr.P.C.
(291)
(A) Misconduct — absolute integrity
(B) Misconduct — devotion to duty
(C) Misconduct — unbecoming conduct
(i) Not necessary, in order to establish charge of want
of absolute integrity, that passing of illegal gratification
must be established. It is enough if the conduct of
the Government servant discloses that he had acted
in a manner in which he would not have normally
acted but for the intention to oblige somebody.