Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. I may also point out that the Tribunal was not justified in relying upon the statement of Kake Babu as recorded by the C.I.D. That statement was not signed by Kake Babu. Kake Babu was not examined before the Tribunal. His- statement was not recorded by any Magistrate or by any independent officer. The C.I.D. was in the position of a prosecutor. The petitioner had no opportunity of testing the correctness of the statement purporting to be that of Kake Babu and recorded in the diary of the C.I.D. In my opinion neither the principles of natural justice nor the canons of equity could justify the acceptance of the statement of Kake Babu as written in the case diary of the C.I.D. It is true that the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act do not govern the proceedings before the Tribunal but there are certain basic principles of evidence which no Tribunal can ignore and one of them is that evidence of doubtful nature e.g. unsigned statements of a person, who has not been produced before the Tribunal, recorded at the back of an accused person by an investigating officer who is also the prosecutor, should not be accepted.