R.R. Prasad, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant No. 2 and learned counsel appearing for the CBI on the matter of bail.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 420/ 468/477A as also under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and was awarded maximum sentence of five years for one of the offences on the allegation that the appellant without supplying 748 quintals of fishmeal to the Department took payment but the prosecution has failed palpably to establish the charge as none of the witness has come forward to say that the materials which the appellant claimed to have supplied was never supplied, still the appellant was convicted and sentence on the premise that the appellant failed to furnish satisfactory information as to from where the said materials had been purchased and that firm of the appellant was never registered with the Sales Tax Department and that the appellant also failed to pro- duce evidence as to from where the appellant had purchased fishmeal and as such the judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from illegality as the onus to prove innocence as has been thrown on the appellant which is contrary to the-principle of law rather it is the prosecution who has to prove the charge and under this situation, the appellant deserves to be admitted on bail.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also submits that as per the case of the prosecution this appellant has supplied 748 quintals of fishmeal and the other accused had also supplied fishmeal and altogether 8222 quintals of fishmeal had been supplied but the Court disbelieved the case of the defence on the ground that godown at Hotwar Farm did not have had capacity to store such a large quantity but the appellant had only supplied 748 quintals of fishmeal.;