IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3124 OF 2001 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant vs 1 Mohammed Ali Husain Shaikh & Chacha 2 Javed @ Javed Kaliya Wahid Khan 3 Rafiq Ahmed Shafi Ahmed Ansari @ Anand 4 Rafiq Mohd. Isaq Phalka 5 Imtiyaz Dawood Merchant 6 Adil Mohd.Ali Khan 7 Sabirali Majahan Hussain 8 Abdul Kavi Mohd Iddris Shaikh 9 Mohd. Azim Abdul Kavi Shaikha 10 Aftab Alam Irshad Ahmed Khan 11 Ramesh Sadhuram Tourani 12 Jaffar Sharif S/o Mohd Inayathullah 13 Faiyhaz Ahmed 14 Phiroz Sultan Khan 15 Wasim Babu @ Wasim Abdul 16 Abdul Rashid Dawood Merchant 17 Fatima Dawood Merchant ...Respondents Mr.H.J.Dedhia for the Applicant-State None for the respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JUNE 11, 2009 P.C. 1 This application on final hearing board is mentioned by the learned A.P.P. He has placed on record communication dated 10th June 2009 issued to him by the Office of Commissioner of State Intelligence in which it is stated that the first respondent has since expired. The letter is taken on record and marked `X for identification. 2 The first respondent had accepted the tender of pardon and had made a confessional statement before the learned Magistrate. The first respondent-approver was examined as P.W.no.31. According to the applicant-prosecution, the first respondent resiled from his confessional statement and therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor issued a certificate under section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 certifying that the said approver had not disclosed the true and correct facts within his knowledge and therefore, pardon granted to him needs to be withdrawn. Therefore, an application was made by the applicant praying that the approver be treated as accused and he should not be permitted to be cross examined by the defence. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application and passed an order permitting the defence to cross examine the said first respondent-approver. 3 Now it is pointed out that the first respondent approver has since expired. Hence, challenge to the impugned order will not survive and the application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE