(46) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) mobile phone from accused Pradip. Much less to say that during the course of argument advanced by Advocate Shri Ghanekar on behalf of accused Pradip, he did not dispute said fact. Even otherwise the evidence of both the Police officials is trustworthy and reliable and in the light of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of “Gurjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2011, AIR SCW 1382”, said evidence can be accepted since I find it to be truthful. Even said evidence is not shaken much during the course of cross examination. Therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the fact that accused No.1 by name Javed Khan handed over said mobile to accused No.2 by name Pradip Chandaliya who had inserted his own Sim­card in it and utilized it for his use. The evidence of PW­26 Mayur Chandaliya also discloses that he had given said Sim­card to his father. He also admits that he had given that Sim­card to his father. He also admits in cross examination conducted by Advocate Shri Bangar, for accused No.2 that his father was required to go to Shani­Shingnapur on 18.6.2009. He admits in cross examination that his father told him that he was having one mobile of one customer who was not having money to pay bill of hotel and his father told that he