RUDRANARAYAN MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is clear that this appeal has abated because no sentence of fine was imposed but merely substantive sentence was imposed upon the accused. However, an application for condonation of delay for substitution of heirs of the accused since dead, has been made under the proviso to Sec. 394(2) of Crimial P.C. We condone the delay and allow the substitution.

(2.) On a consideration of the evidence on merits however, we are satisfied that the conviction of the appellant was justified. The amount of Rs. 75 having been admittedly accepted by the appellant, the only question is whether his explanation that the same was in connection with the bicycle transaction has been rendered reasonably probable or not and on that aspect of the matter both the lower Courts have not accepted that story. Even after hearing Counsel and going through the documents relied upon by him we find it difficult to believe that story.

(3.) The appeal is therefore dismissed.