VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 524
935
production of such materials on which the court can reasonably act
to reach the supposition that a fact exists. Proof of the fact depends
upon the degree of probability of its having existed. The standard
required for reaching the supposition is that of a prudent man acting
in any important matter concerning him.
The Supreme Court observed that ofcourse the appellant
made a serious endeavour to rebut the presumption through two
modes. One is to make the complainant and accompanying witness
speak to the version of the appellant and the other is by examining two
witnesses on the defence side. The two defence witnesses gave
evidence to the effect that the appellant was not present at the station
on the dates when the alleged demand was made by the appellant.
But the trial court and the High Court held their evidence
unreliable and such a finding is supported by sound and formidable
reasoning. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent finding made
by the two courts does not require any interference.
(524)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Secs. 7, 13(1)(d)
(B) Trap — appreciation of evidence
Appreciation of evidence in a trap case. Supreme
Court was in agreement with High Court in holding
the accused persons guilty of the offence.
(C) Cr.P.C. — Sec. 313 — examination of accused
High Court conducting additional examination of
accused under sec. 313 Cr.P.C. so as to rectify
“irregularity”, is no illegality.
Rambhau vs. State of Maharashtra,
2001 Cri.L.J. SC 2343
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution has clearly
established that the appellant No.1 is a public servant and in discharge