JUDGMENT

B.L. HANSARIA, J. - The Appellant was convicted under Section 120-B of the Penal Code read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, by Special Judge, Manipur. He was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 10,000 and to imprisonment till the rising of the court. On appeal being preferred, the Imphal Bench of the Guahati High Court dismissed the same. The learned Judge deciding the appeal, however, granted, on oral prayer being made, leave, under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution to prefer an appeal to this Court, albeit without specifying the question of law involved.

2. While issuing notice in the appeal, the appellant was also asked to show cause as to why the punishment should not be enhanced.

3. Dr. Dhavan, appearing for the appellant, has first contended that the conviction of the appellant itself is not tenable inasmuch as the onus of proof, which lies in a case where guilt is based on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, has not been fully discharged by prosecution. To sustain this submission, we have been referred to S.P. Bhatnagar v. State of Maharashtra. As Dr. Dhavan strenuously contended that the test regarding proof laid down in Bhatnagar ca