Factual backgound facts in a nutshell are as follows The appellant faced trial for alleged companymission of offence punishable under Section 13 1 e read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in short the Act .
The allegation against the appellant was that he was in possession of property worth Rs.
The companyclusion was arrived at after taking numbere of the pecuniary resources of the accused appellant.
77 of 1996.
3,10,784.
Appellant faced trial in the Court of Special Judge, Dhule in Special Case No.
4,12,297 which was disproportionate to his known sources of income.
After companysidering the available materials on recored, the trial companyrt held that the accused appellant was in possession of assests disproportionate to his known sources of income.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Against the companyviction and sentence appeals have been filed before the Bombay High Court.
Refusal by the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench to accept the prayer of the appellant, for suspension of sentence and to be released on bail while admitting the appeal filed by him, is questioned in this Appeal.
