VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

788 DECISION - 402
while he was just going out of the office of A.1. Unless A.1 had
demanded the money and has also directed him to hand over the
same to A.2, there was no reason at all as to why the complainant
should hand over the money to A.2. The complainant has consistently
stated that A.1 demanded the bribe and that A.2 received the amount
as stated by him. Therefore it cannot be said that there is no
corroboration regarding the demand. This is a case where each of
the accused tried to throw the blame on the other but taking the
overall circumstances into consideration in the light of the evidence
of the mediators, along with the evidence of the complainant and the
accompanying witness both the courts below have consistently held
that the evidence of these witnesses establishes the guilt of the
accused and the Supreme Court saw no reason to come to a different
conclusion.
(402)
Misconduct — in judicial functions
Magistrate conducting auction of timber involved in
a forest offence without authority and settling the
bid for a very low amount constitutes misconduct.
High Court of A.P. vs. G. Narasa Reddy,
1996 (3) ALT AP 146
This writ appeal arose out of the judgment of a Single Judge
of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 2-12-1994, whereby a
Single Judge quashed the order of dismissal of the respondent from
judicial service.
The Respondent, while functioning as Munsiff Magistrate
Achampet conducted auction of timber involved in a forest offence
without authority and settled the bid for a very low amount, having
confiscated teak logs without jurisdiction, manipulating date of
proclamation of sale, the name of the highest bidder and other
particulars.
After discussing the facts and circumstances of the case,