1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Application No.4487 of 2008 IN Criminal Appeal No. of 2008 Union of India. .. .. Applicant (Orig.Complainant) v/s. 1.Sayyed Hyder & anr. .. Respondents (Res.No.1-orig.Accused No.3) Mr.R.F. Lambay for Applicant. Mr.P.A. Pol, PP for State. ---- CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. Dated : 21st August, 2009 P.C. : 1.We have heard Mr.Lambay, the learned Counsel for the Applicant-Union of India. 2.In NDPS Special Case No.46 of 2001, the three accused were put on trial before the learned Special Judge for NDPA for Greater Mumbai. As per the judgment and order dated 30.4.2008, the learned Special Judge was pleased to convict and sentence accused No.1, whereas accused No.3 came to be acquitted from all the charges by giving him the benefit of doubt. Hence, this Application is filed by the Union of India under section 378(3) of Criminal Procedure Code for seeking 2 leave to appeal against the order of acquittal. 3.At the first instance, Mr.Lambay submitted that despite the best efforts made by the officers of the DRI, Respondent No.1 could not be traced and, therefore, no notice could be served on him. 4.Be that as it may, we have considered the challenge on merits and perused the reasoning set out by the learned Special Judge in paragraphs 140 to 155 of the order of acquittal and we are satisfied that accused No.3 has been rightly given the benefit of doubt and, therefore, the reasoning set out in support of his acquittal does not call for any reconsiderations at our hands. Hence, the leave is refused. 5.Consequently, the Application is rejected. [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]