VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

962 DECISION - 541
5(1)(c) of the P.C. Act, 1947 (corresponding to sec. 13(2) read with
sec. 13(1)(c) of P.C.Act, 1988) for breach of trust and falsification of
accounts.
The High Court held that element of dishonesty is explicit, in
view of the fact that on several occasions, the appellant made entries
in the passbooks on various loanees accounts and received the cash
amounts and did not choose to show the payments in the ledger
books. Once it is proved that the amount was entrusted to him, then
under sec. 106 of Evidence Act, he has to establish as to what
happened to the said amount and that fact lies within the knowledge
of the accused and as such, the burden of establishing the said fact
is upon him. The High Court did not accept the defence plea that he
never received any amount from the loanees and alternatively that
the amount had been paid back. High Court also held that the fact
that the appellant had repaid entire amount before investigation would
not absolve him of criminal liability.
(541)
Court jurisdiction
If two views are possible, court shall not interfere
by substituting its own satisfaction or opinion for the
satisfaction or opinion of the authority exercising the
power, in judicial review.
Union of India vs. Harjeet Singh Sandhu,
2002(1) SLJ SC 1
The respondent was proceeded against in a General Court
Martial under sec. 19 of the Army Act, 1950 and ultimately it came up
in appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court observed: Exercise of power under sec.
19 of the Army Act read with Rule 14 of the Army Rules, 1954 is
open to judicial review on well settled parameters of administrative
law governing judicial review of administrative action such as when
the exercise of power is shown to have been vitiated by mala fides or
is found to be based wholly on extraneous and/or irrelevant grounds