Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.34 seconds)
Corporation vs . Satya Narain" on 14 March, 2007 cites

State Of Haryana And Anr. vs Rattan Singh on 22 March, 1977

The statement of the checking staff that the passengers told that they had paid fare to the conductor and were not issued tickets cannot be considered as inadmissible. Even if, it is hearsay evidence, in terms of Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (supra) there should be no allergy in accepting hearsay evidence if, hearsay evidence is relevant and cogent. The passengers who travel in inter-state buses of DTC need not be of Delhi and may be of 9 ID No. 800/06/03 different places far-away from Delhi. They cannot be expected to come to Delhi and participate in an enquriy where one is called time and again before enquiry officer and then before Tribunal because of the attitude which is prevalent these days in Courts and Enquiries. This would be too much to expect. There is no reason why the checking staff should not be believed. If, there are two statements one given by the conductor in his own support and other given by the checking staff, the Enquiry Officer has to chose which of the two statements is more reliable. Conductor is the person who is facing charges and is interested to save himself while the checking staff are the officers of the petitioner on duty, who perform their duty in order to see that the employees of the petitioners do not misappropriate the money of the petitioner and do not cause loss to the petitioner. Unless there are allegations of personal enmity or malafides made against the checking staff and malafides or enmity is proved by the errant and delinquent conductor, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the checking staff. The Courts must keep in mind that the principle 'Let hundred guilty go scot free lest one innocent may be punished' is not applicable in enquiries and proceedings before the Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 650 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1