VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 318
651
course of the inquiry, it has not been denied that the petitioner has
passed this receipt in his own handwriting to Raj Kumar. The only
explanation offered at the time of the arguments in the High Court is
that this receipt does not mention any sale of a T.V. Set but that the
petitioner has given the receipt on behalf of one of his friends who
manufactures cabinets and it was for the sale of cabinets on behalf
of his friend that the petitioner had passed the receipt to Raj Kumar.
The High Court observed that it is difficult to accept this story of the
petitioner. First of all, it is difficult to visualize how a cabinet can have
the Tube number, Lot No. and the Yoke no. which have been
mentioned in the receipt and are tallied with the T.V. set which has
been recovered by Shri Mukherjee from the residence of Raj Kumar.
Secondly, there is no question of giving any warranty for one year on
the sale of the cabinets to Raj Kumar. Thirdly, the petitioner says
that he has given this receipt on behalf of his friend who was not
present at that time when Raj Kumar visited the premises of his friend.
If that is so, there is no earthly reason why the petitioner should have
given his official telephone number on the receipt. When the receipt
itself is admitted with all its contents, it points unmistakably to the
sale of one object and that is the T.V. Set in question with the
description of the Tube no., Lot no. and the Yoke No. given in the
receipt.
The question, therefore, to be considered is whether this is
not evidence enough against the petitioner, to substantiate the charge
of assembling and manufacturing a spurious T.V. set and selling it as
an ‘Ajantha’ black and white T.V. The High Court held this cannot be
termed as a case of no evidence at all. The receipt itself constitutes
adequate evidence to show that the petitioner has indeed sold the T.V.
set to Raj Kumar. The fact that Raj Kumar has later filed an affidavit
retracting his earlier statement cannot be of any consequence in the
presence of the receipt which has been passed over by the petitioner
himself. It is obvious that the petitioner has prevailed over Raj Kumar
to file the second affidavit to save his job. It is also true that this affidavit
has not been considered by the authorities while passing