VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 292
611
As a matter of fact, in the decision of State of Mysore vs.
Sivabasappa: AIR 1963 SC 375 cited by the respondent himself, the
Supreme Court has observed that to require that the contents of the
previous statement should be repeated by the witness word by word
and sentence by sentence is to insist on bare technicalities and rules
of natural justice are matters not of form but of substance and they
are sufficiently complied with when previous statements given by
witnesses are read over to them, marked on their admission, copies
thereof given to the person charged and he is given an opportunity to
cross-examine them. This is exactly what has been done in the
instant case by the Inquiry Officer.
The High Court held that the findings recorded by the
disciplinary authority are clearly supported by evidence, that the inquiry
is not vitiated by any errors and that the respondent had been afforded
the maximum opportunity of meeting the charges against him and
there is no reason at all to interfere with the findings recorded. The
High Court set aside the order of the single Judge and allowed the
petition filed by the department.
(292)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 13(1)(e)
(B) Disproportionate assets — bank account, seizure of
Money in a bank account is “property” within the
meaning of sec.102 Cr.P.C. which could be seized by
prohibiting the holder of the account from operating it.
Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd vs. Minu Publication,
(1988) 17 Reports (MAD) 53
This is a case where the accused, an employee of the Bharat
Overseas Bank had fradulently collected large sums of money from
the branches of the bank in Madras through accounts opened in the
name of fictitious persons by forging credit advices and other bank
Investigation disclosed that the accused had played fraud on a large