"Where a witness is confronted by his previous statement and is given opportunity to explain, that part of statement which is put to him does not constitute substantive evidence."

It will also be advantageous at this stage to refer to another decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Bareilly Electricity Supply Co, Ltd. Vs The Workmen and ors, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 330, where it was held that though the evidence Act is not applicable to the Domestic Tribunals that does not mean that where issues are seriously contested and have to be established and proved the requirements relating to proof can be dispensed with.

20. Bearing in mind the above noted principles, let me now see whether there was any legal evidence to justify the crucial conclusion arrived at by the Anti-Corruption Commission that the labourers engaged by the Public Works Department for the construction of Kaluchak Purmandal Road ‘had been made to work at the house of the appellant. A perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the Commission would make it clear that it has not been legally proved that the house on which the P.W.D. labourers were found working belonged to the appellant. No witness of the prosecution

Click Here to Read the rest of this document