[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1949 OF 2007 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2007 IN NDPS SPL.CASE NO.84 OF 2004 G.I.Joseph Inspector of Custom Narcotics Cell, Mumbai ..Applicant Vs. Girish Raghunath Mehta and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.R.Y.Mirza Counsel for Applicant Mr.A.S.Shitole APP for State Mr.Ayaz Khan Adv. for Respondent No.1 ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 4, 2008 DATE : JULY 4, 2008 DATE : JULY 4, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-original complainant i.e. the Customs authority has filed this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.7.2006 passed against the Respondent No.1-original accused. The accused was prosecuted along with another accused in NDPS Spl.Case No. 84 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge for Greater Bombay convicted the Respondent No.1 under Sections 15 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act. However, the learned [-2-] Judge acquitted the Respondent No.1-accused of the offence under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the Respondent No.1 under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, this application for leave to file appeal has been preferred. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1. I have also perused the impugned judgment and order and evidence. 3. The prosecution case is that on the instructions of the Respondent No.1-accused, one Leena Jagtap made entries in the register. On perusal of the evidence, it is seen that prosecution has produced on record statements of Leena Jagtap which are at Exhs. 45, 54 and 62 through prosecution witnesses namely PW 3 Mrs.Sakpal and PW 5 Canute. However, prosecution has not adduced evidence of Leena Jagtap for supporting the contents of these statements of Leena Jagtap that the entries in these registers were made by her on the instructions of accused [-3-] no.1 Girish Mehta. According to prosecution, Leena Jagtap is not available for recording her evidence. So also evidence of PW 10 Ramesh Koli is in the form of negative evidence about not visiting the said shop and not purchasing poppy straw powder from the shop. The said negative evidence is not establishing that the entries in the registers are incorrect entries, as there is failure on the part of prosecution to establish that these articles were seized under panchnama Exh.17 as produced by accused No.1 and that entries in the said register were made by Leena Jagtap. 4. It is seen that the prosecution has failed to establish that as per annexure A of the panchnama Exh.10 registers were seized on 27.2.2004 and with failure of prosecution to adduce evidence of Leena jagtap about contents of her statements which are produced on record at Exhs. 45, 54 and 62 through witnesses PW 3 Mrs.Sakpal and PW 7 Canute, it cannot be said that evidence of these two witnesses is sufficient evidence about the contents of the statements of Leena Jagtap. Further more, PW 11 Excise Inspector Rane has not deposed about irregularities in these registers or regarding any [-4-] false entries. Consequently, it will have to be held that evidence on record does not establish that entries in the registers articles No. 7, 8 and 9 were made by Leena Jagtap on instructions given by accused No.1 Girish Mehta and that such entries were made by Leena Jagtap as per directions of Girish Mehta for recording false entries, fake entries or incorrect entries. So also there is absence of evidence on record for inferring knowledge and intention of accused No.1 in respect of recording false and fake entries for using the same for cheating. There is no material to show the accused had knowledge that the entries are false and with intention to use it dishonestly and fraudulently the accused got recorded such entries through Leena Jagtap. There is no material brought on record that said Leena Jagtap was working at the said shop as unauthorised person for sale transactions of poppy straw powder and fragments. 5. The learned Special Judge has taken into consideration all the above aspects and thereafter, he has acquitted the Respondent No.1-accused. 6. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Special [-5-] Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, leave to file appeal, is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]