Shriram Tanbaji Dhamane vs Govt.Of India Thr.Cbi,Nagpur
2024 Latest Caselaw 24565 Bom

Bombay High Court

Shriram Tanbaji Dhamane vs Govt.Of India Thr.Cbi,Nagpur on 21 August, 2024

2024:BHC-NAG:9271




              Judgment

                                                                273 apeal632.05

                                            1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.632 OF 2005
              Shriram s/o Tanbaji Dhamane, aged
              49 years, occupation : service, r/o Pande-Layout
              Khamala Road, Nagpur.              ..... Appellant.

                                   :: V E R S U S ::

              Government of India
              (through CBI Nagpur.).         ..... Respondent.
              ===================================
              Shri S.Taywade, Advocate h/f Shri Aniruddha Jaltare,
              Counsel for the Appellant.
              Shri P.Sathianathan, Special Public Prosecutor for the
              Respondent.
              ===================================

              CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
              CLOSED ON : 05/08/2024
              PRONOUNCED ON : 21/08/2024


              JUDGMENT

1. The judgment and order dated 16.11.2005 passed by

learned Judge, Special Court Designated under Prevention of

Corruption Act for CBI, Nagpur (learned Trial Judge) in Special

Case No.14/1994 is the subject-matter of challenge in the

present appeal by the appellant (the accused).

2. By the judgment impugned in the appeal, the accused

is convicted for offence punishable under Section 7 of the

.....2/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the said Act) and

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and

to pay fine Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for three months.

He is further convicted for offence punishable under

Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced

to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine

Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four

months.

3. Facts, in a nut shell, giving rise to the appeal are as

given below:

4. In March 1994, the accused was working as "Upper

Division Clerk" in the office of the Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central), at CGO Complex, Seminary Hills,

Nagpur (the RLC). At the relevant time, Shri M.T.Rughani was

Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagpur. Gautam C.Nagdevte

(the complainant), was carrying business of stone quarry at

Borgaon Pahari, district Wardha and was granted lease for the

quarry. The complainant was to submit Annual Return to the

office of the RLC. The Labour Commissioner inspected the

.....3/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

factory of the complainant and noticed some illegalities and

irregularities and, therefore, the complainant along with his

friend Shri Padamsingh went to the office of the RLC for

submitting Annual Return and submitted the same with the

concerned clerk. He also met the Labour Commissioner and it

was informed to him that he had not paid amount to

labourers, which is to be paid as per the law. It is further

alleged that the Assistant Labour Commissioner demanded

amount Rs.2400/- from him and he was asked to meet the

accused. However, the complainant did not meet the accused

and returned back to Wardha. On 18.3.1994, the complainant

received a registered notice from the Assistant Labour

Commissioner. After receipt of the notice, the complainant

again along with his friend visited the office of the RLC on

21.3.1994. The said Labour Commissioner demanded

Rs.1800/- from the complainant. Thereafter, the Labour

Commissioner called the accused and asked him to prepare

compliance report and the complainant was directed to get it

done from the accused. The accused demanded Rs.200/- from

the complainant and accepted Rs.100/- on the same day and

asked to pay the balance amount Rs.100/- subsequently. As

the complainant was not willing to pay the amount, he

.....4/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

approached the office of The Central Bureau of Investigation

(the CBI) and lodged a complaint.

5. After receipt of the complaint, the CBI officer

Dy.Superintendent of Police called two panchas from a bank.

The complainant was introduced with panchas. The complaint

was read over to panchas and panchas also obtained

information from the complainant. The complainant was

asked to pay the amount, which is to be used in the trap. The

complainant produced a note of Rs.100/- denomination. A

demonstration as to use and characteristics of

phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate was shown to

the complainant and panchas. After applying the solution of

the phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate on the

tainted note, the said note was handed over to the

complainant and the complainant kept the said note in his

right side pocket of his kurta. The complainant was directed

not to pay the amount unless it is demanded. Pancha No.1

was instructed to stay along with the complainant and

observe communication and pancha no.2 was directed to

remain with other raiding party members. Accordingly, a pre-

trap pancha was drawn.

.....5/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

6. After the pre-trap panchanama, the complainant,

panchas, and raiding party members proceeded in a car. They

reached near the office of the accused. The complainant and

pancha No.1 approached the accused. The accused asked the

complainant whether he brought the amount. The compliance

report was prepared and was handed over the same to a lady

clerk. After acceptance of the amount, the complainant gave

a pre-determined signal and the accused was caught. The

tainted amount of Rs.100/- was seized from the accused. The

hand wash of the accused as well as the complainant was

collected. After obtaining a sanction, chargesheet was filed

against the accused.

7. To substantiate allegations, the prosecution examined

in all four witnesses namely, Ramnath Daulatnath Parankar

vide Exhibit-22 (PW1), the Shadow Pancha; Gautam Sahadeo

Nagdeve vide Exhibit-32 (PW2), the complainant;

Sameshersingh Rajaram Pasi vide Exhibit-42 (PW3), the Trap

Officer; and Nandkumar Prasad Shivnarayan Sahu vide

Exhibit-47 (PW4), the Sanctioning Authority.

8. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution placed

reliance on pre-trap panchanama Exhibit-24, post-trap

.....6/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

panchanama Exhibit-25, seizure memos Exhibits-26 to 29,

map Exhibit-30, complaint Exhibit-34, communication by the

complainant to the Assistant Labour Commissioner Exhibit-35,

First Information Report Exhibit-43, Sanction Order Exhibit-48,

and the Chemical Analyzer's Report Exhibit-55.

9. After considering the evidence adduced during the

trial, learned Trial Judge held the accused guilty as the

aforesaid.

10. Heard Advocate Shri S.Taywade h/f learned counsel

Shri Aniruddha Jaltare for the accused and learned Special

Public Prosecutor Shri P.Sathianathan for the respondent. I

have been taken through the entire evidence so also the

judgment impugned in the appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that

learned Trial Judge has not considered that the amount paid

was for preparation of reply, which was not the official work.

Thus, it cannot be treated as gratification amount. The

evidence on record sufficiently shows that the amount was not

paid towards official work, but the complainant has to submit

reply to the notice issued by the Labour Commissioner. The

.....7/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

said reply was prepared by the accused to help the

complainant and towards the said work, the alleged amount

was paid. The sanction accorded is without application of

mind. The demand and acceptance of gratification is sine qua

non to attract provisions of the said Act. Thus, the judgment

impugned in the appeal is on the basis of surmises and

conjectures.

12. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the

State submitted that the evidence of complainant PW2

Gautam and Shadow Pancha PW1 Ramnath is consistent as to

the demand and acceptance. As far as defence of the accused

is concerned, there is no evidence to show that the amount

was paid towards the reply prepared by the accused. The

evidence of witnesses shows that the Assistant Labour

Commissioner asked the accused to prepare compliance

report and for preparing the said compliance report, the

demand was made. The sanction is after application of mind

and, therefore, no interference is called for in the judgment

impugned in the appeal.

13. In support of his contentions, learned Special Public

Prosecutor for the State placed reliance on following decisions:

.....8/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

1. Tarsem Lal vs. State of Haryana1;

2. State of M.P. and ors vs. Shri Ram Singh2, and

3. State of A.P. vs. Vasudeva Rao3.

14. The validity of the sanction was questioned by the

accused and it was challenged on ground that the sanction

was accorded without application of mind.

15. In order to prove the sanction, the prosecution

examined Sanctioning Authority PW4 Nandkumar. The sum

and substance of his evidence is that at the relevant time, he

was working as Regional Labour Commissioner at Nagpur. The

post of "Upper Division Clerk" was Group-C and non-gazetted.

He was the appointing authority for the said post and the

appointing authority had powers of termination to the said

category employee. The office of RLC falls under the Ministry

of the Government of India for Labour and Employment. He

accorded the sanction to prosecute the accused after going

through investigation papers. He had received copy of the

First Information Report from the Superintendent of Police,

CBI. He perused all those documents and found merits in the

1 AIR 1987 SC 806 2 2000 CRI LJ SC 1401 3 2004 CRI LJ 620

.....9/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

prosecution allegation. Accordingly, he accorded the sanction,

which is at Exhibit-48. During cross examination, it is brought

on record that he had received format for sanction from the

CBI. As far as the reply is concerned, he admitted that the

said reply is to be given by employer or with the help of other

person knowing law. As far as the non-application of mind is

concerned, the said witness is not at all cross examined on the

same.

16. Whether sanction is valid or not and when sanction can

be called as valid, is settled by various decisions of the

Honourable Apex Court as well as this court.

17. The Honourable Apex in the case of Mohd.Iqbal

Ahmad vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 4 held that what the

court has to see is whether or not the Sanctioning Authority at

the time of giving the sanction was aware of the facts

constituting the offence and applied its mind for the same and

any subsequent fact coming into existence after the resolution

had been passed is wholly irrelevant. The grant of sanction is

not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn

and sacrosanct act which affords protection to government

4 1979 AIR 677

.....10/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

servants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore be

strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched

against the public servant concerned.

18. In view of the settled principles of law, it is crystal clear

that the Sanctioning Authority has to apply his/her own

independent mind for generation of his/her satisfaction for

sanction. The sanction order should speak for itself. It is well

settled that sanction order should not be so elaborate like an

order of court containing detailed reasons, but it should be

after application of mind. Ultimately, an object of grant of

sanction should be able to consider evidence and material

before it and the Sanctioning Authority shall come to a

conclusion that whether the prosecution in the circumstances

be permitted or forbidden. It is further well settled that

sanction is solemn and sacrosanct act. The law does not

require sanction to be in a particular form. The sanction

should be given in respect of facts constituting offence

charged equally which applies to the sanction under Section

19 of the said Act.

19. In the light of the well settled legal position, if the

Sanction Order is perused, Sanctioning Authority PW4

.....11/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

Nandkumar stated that he received all investigation papers.

He went through all papers, formed his opinion, and accorded

the sanction. Insofar as his cross examination is concerned,

the evidence of the said witness is not shattered. In the

Sanction Order, the entire prosecution case is reproduced and

in second last para it is specifically mentioned that after

carefully examining material before him, regarding said

allegations and circumstances of the case, the sanction is

accorded.

20. Thus, the evidence of Sanctioning Authority PW4

Nandkumar shows that not only the said witness has gone

through papers of investigation but also formed his opinion

and on his satisfaction he accorded the sanction.

21. Thus, the issue of sanction cannot be put at such

pedestal as it would make impossible for the prosecution to

prove the same. The object and purpose of grant of sanction

and protection contemplated thereby do not mean that

technical and trivial objections to legality and validity of

sanction to be entertained. When all relevant materials

placed before the Sanctioning Authority are found to be taken

.....12/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

into consideration in correct perspective, the sanction

accorded is by application of mind.

22. Besides the issue of the sanction, the prosecution

claimed that the accused demanded gratification amount and

accepted the same.

23. In order to prove the demand and acceptance, the

prosecution mainly placed reliance on the evidence of

complainant PW2 Gautam and Shadow Pancha PW1 Ramnath.

24. On the question of demand and payment of the bribe

amount for performance of public duty, it is necessary to see

testimony of complainant PW2 Gautam. As per his evidence,

he is running business of stone quarry. In March 1994, the

Assistant Labour Commissioner had visited his quarry for

inspection. During the inspection, he prepared inspection

report and intended to take some action against him. The

said Commissioner called him in his office on 18.3.1994. On

attending the office, the Assistant Labour Commissioner

demanded Rs.2400/- from him and informed him that he

would prepare report and initiate proceeding against him. He

was not having money and, therefore, he left the office.

.....13/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

Again, he visited the office on 21.3.1994. The Assistant

Labour Commissioner handed over some documents to him

and asked him to pay the amount on the next day. He also

asked to hand over papers to the accused. The accused was

asked to prepare some papers and for that purpose, the

accused demanded Rs.200/-. He paid Rs.100/- and remaining

Rs.100/- to be paid on the next day. Therefore, he approached

the office of the bureau and lodged the complaint. He

narrated about the pre-trap panchanama. As to the demand,

his evidence is that on 22.3.1994 he along with Shadow

Pancha PW1 Ramnath approached the accused. The accused

demanded the amount for preparation of the compliance

report. Accordingly, he handed over the same. The accused

prepared the compliance report and handed over the same to

a lady clerk. He gave a predetermined signal and the accused

was caught. The amount was recovered from drawer of table

of the accused. The hand wash of the accused so also his

hand wash was collected.

25. To corroborate the version of complainant PW2

Gautam, the prosecution examined Shadow Pancha PW1

Ramnath who narrated about events took place during the

.....14/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

pre-trap panchanama. As per the evidence of Shadow Pancha

PW1 Ramnath, on complainant PW2 Gautam approaching the

accused, the accused demanded the amount. The accused

also prepared some documents and handed over the same to

a lady clerk. On demand by the accused, the complainant

took out the amount from his kurta pocket and handed over

the same to the accused. After getting a signal, the accused

was caught and the amount was recovered from his drawer of

table. The hand wash of the accused was also collected.

26. Both witnesses complainant PW2 Gautam and Shadow

Pancha PW1 Ramnath are cross examined. During cross

examination, it came on record that a notice was issued to the

complainant as to non-compliance in his factory and to comply

objections, he had been called to the office of the accused.

The accused was asked to prepare the compliance report and

to prepare the said compliance report, demand of Rs.100/-

was made. An attempt was made to show that the reply has

to be prepared to the notice and the accused prepared the

said reply. Though the complainant admitted the same in his

examination, the shadow pancha has denied the same during

the cross examination. The cross examination of the shadow

.....15/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

pancha specifically shows that the complainant was called

upon to give compliance and the said report was prepared by

the accused and for preparing the said report, the demand

was made.

27. Thus from the cross examination of both witnesses

complainant PW2 Gautam and Shadow Pancha PW1 Ramnath

it reveals that the demand was made for preparing the

compliance report. Thus, the demand was for carrying out

official work. Even, the cross examination of Trap Officer PW3

Sameshersingh shows that the complainant had received

show cause notice from the office of the RLC. During

investigation, it was disclosed that the said compliance report

as to the show cause notice was drafted in the office of the

RLC and, thereafter, it was handed over.

28. Recital of the complaint, cross examination of Shadow

Pancha PW1 Ramnath and recital of the post-trap panchanama

wherein communication was reproduced also show that the

accused asked to hand over the compliance report to the

concerned clerk after preparing the same also, he asked to

obtain receipt and demanded amount Rs.100/-. Insofar as

defence of the accused is concerned, the same is not

.....16/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

substantiated by any material to show that the amount was

paid towards the reply prepared by the accused. On the

contrary, it reveals that the show cause notice was issued to

the complainant and the Assistant Labour Commissioner

asked the accused to prepare the compliance report and to

prepare the said compliance report, the demand was made.

The defence of the accused is not supported by any evidence

or by the cross examination of both witnesses.

29. Thus, as far as demand and acceptance is concerned,

the evidence adduced sufficiently shows that for discharging

officials duty, the demand was made and the amount was

accepted.

30. The Chemical Analyzer's Report, which is circumstantial

evidence, also shows that the hand wash of the accused as

well as complainant PW2 Gautam was forwarded to the

Chemical Analyzer.

31. It is well settled that besides the direct evidence,

demand and acceptance can be proved on the basis of

circumstantial evidence.

.....17/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

32. The Constitution Bench of the Honourable Apex Court

in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt.of NCT of

Delhi)5 held that for recording conviction under Sections 7

and 13 (1)(d)(i) (ii) of the said Act, the prosecution has to

prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification

either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral or

documentary evidence or by circumstantial evidence in the

absence of direct or oral evidence. It further held that under

Section 7 of the said, in order to bring home the offence, there

must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is

accepted by the public servant which would make it an

offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when

accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment

made which is received by the public servant, would be an

offence of obtainment under Section 13(1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of

the said Act.

33. It is well settled that offences under the said Act

relating to public servants taking bribe require demand of

illegal gratification and acceptance thereof. The proof of

demand of bribe by public servants and its acceptance by him

is sine qua non for establishing offences under the said Act.

5 2023 4 SCC 731

.....18/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

34. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of

K.Shanthamma vs. The State of Telangana 6 referring the

judgment in the case of P.Satyanarayana Murthy vs.

District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh

and anr7 held that the proof of demand of bribe by a public

servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for

establishing the offence under Section 7 of the said Act. The

failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal

gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount

from the person accused of the offences under Sections 7 and

13 of the said Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.

The Honourable Apex Court has reproduced paragraph No.23

of its decision in the case of P.Satyanarayana Murthy supra,

which reads thus:

"The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the

6 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 192 7 (2015)10 SCC 152

.....19/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction".

35. To prove the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of

the said Act, following are ingredients of the said Sections,

which require to be prove:

under Section 7: (1) the accused must be a public

servant or expecting to be a public servant; (2) he

should accept or obtain or agrees to accept or

attempts to obtain from any person; (3) for himself or

for any other person; (4) any gratification other than

legal remuneration, and (5) as a motive or reward for

doing or forbearing to do any official act or to show

any favour or disfavour.

under Section 13(1)(d): (1) the accused must be a

public servant; (2) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains

for himself or any other person any valuable thing or

pecuniary advantage; or or by abusing his position as

public servant, obtains for himself or for any other

person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

while holding office as public servant, obtains for any

person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage

.....20/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

without any public interest; (3) to make out an offence

under Section 13(1)(d), there is no requirement that

the valuable thing or pecuniary advantage should have

been received as a motive or reward; (4) an agreement

to accept or an attempt to obtain does not fall within

Section 13(1)(d); (5) mere acceptable of any valuable

thing or pecuniary advantage is not an offence under

this provision; (6) to make out an offence under this

provision, there has to be actual obtainment, and (7)

since the legislature has used two different expressions

namely "obtains" or "accepts", the difference between

these two have to be taken into consideration.

36. The Constitution Bench of the Honourable Apex Court

in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt.of NCT of

Delhi) supra held that in order to bring home the guilt of the

accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of

illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a

matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct

evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or

documentary evidence. The Honourable Apex Court, while

discussing expression "accept", referred the judgment in the

.....21/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

case of Subhash Parbat Sonvane vs. State of Gujarat8

observed that mere acceptance of money without there being

any other evidence would not be sufficient for convicting the

accused under Section 13(1)(d)(i). In Section and 13(1) and

(b) of the said Act, the Legislature has specifically used the

words 'accepts' or 'obtains'. As against this, there is departure

in the language used in clause (1)(d) of Section 13 and it has

omitted the word 'accepts' and has emphasized the word

'obtains'. In sub clauses (i) and (ii) (iii) of Section 13(1)(d), the

emphasize is on the word "obtains". Therefore, there must be

evidence on record that accused 'obtained' for himself or for

any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage

by either corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as

a public servant or he obtained for any person any valuable

thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.

37. While discussing the expression "accept", the

Honourable Apex Court observed that "accepts" means to

take or receive with "consenting mind". The 'consent' can be

established not only by leading evidence of prior agreement

but also from the circumstances surrounding the transaction

itself without proof of such prior agreement. If an

8 (2002)5 SCC 86

.....22/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

acquaintance of a public servant in expectation and with the

hope that in future, if need be, he would be able to get some

official favour from him, voluntarily offers any gratification and

if the public servant willingly takes or receives such

gratification it would certainly amount to `acceptance' and,

therefore, it cannot be said that as an abstract proposition of

law, that without a prior demand there cannot be

`acceptance'. The position will however, be different so far as

an offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the

1947 Act is concerned. Under the said Sections, the

prosecution has to prove that the accused `obtained' the

valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal

means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant

and that too without the aid of the statutory presumption

under Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act as it is available only in

respect of offences under Section 5(1)(a) and (b) and not

under Section 5(1)(c), (d) or (e) of the 1947 Act. According to

this court, 'obtain' means to secure or gain (something) as the

result of request or effort. In case of obtainment the initiative

vests in the person who receives and in that context a

demand or request from him will be a primary requisite for an

offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the 1947 Act unlike an

.....23/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, which can

be established by proof of either `acceptance' or 'obtainment'.

38. In the light of the above well settled legal position, if

the evidence adduced is appreciated, there is no dispute as to

fact that the prosecution is under obligation to prove the

demand as well as the acceptance. The statutory

presumption under Section 20 of the said Act comes into play

when evidence either direct or circumstantial shows that

money was accepted other than for motive or reward under

Section 7 of the said Act. The standard required for rebutting

presumption is tested on the touchstone of preponderance of

probabilities which is a threshold of a lower degree than proof

beyond all reasonable doubts.

39. The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Tarsem Lal

vs. State of Haryana supra, as relied upon by learned

Special Public Prosecutor for the State, held that money is

recovered from the person of the accused and no explanation

is given by him. Subsequent, explanation is after thought.

40. The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of State of

M.P. and ors vs. Shri Ram Singh supra, as relied upon by

.....24/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, held that the

said Act is a social legislation which is designed to curb illegal

activities of public servants. The Act was intended to make

effective provisions for the prevention of bribe and corruption

and it is to be liberally construed so as to advance its objects.

41. In the case in hand, a condition precedent to draw such

legal presumption, that the accused demanded the amount

and accepted the same, has been proved and established.

The evidence of Trap Officer PW3 Sameshersingh shows that

after acceptance of the amount, hands of the accused were

examined and in view of the Chemical Analyzer's Report, the

hand wash of the accused was tested positive and the same

remained unchallenged during cross examination.

42. Thus, a primary condition for acting on the legal

presumption, that the prosecution should have proved that

whatever received by accused was gratification, is proved by

the prosecution. A fact is said to be proved when its

existence is directly established or when upon the material

before it the Court finds its existence to be so probable that a

reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists.

Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the

.....25/-

Judgment

273 apeal632.05

presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be

rebutted. Learned Trial Judge has rightly considered the same

and convicted and sentenced the accused.

43. In the light of the above, the appeal is devoid of merits

and liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.

The appeal stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 21/08/2024 11:35:35