1 APPLN.569-2011 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 569 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant. Vs. Binadevi @ Panchavartidevi Indradeosingh & Anr. . ...Respondents. ---- Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, A.P.P. for the State. Mrs. S.A. Dhamale, for the Respondents. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 23, 2011. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and the learned counsel for respondents. 2. This application for leave to file appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Ad-Hoc Addl. Sessions Judge-2, Malegaon. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused-respondents for the offence 2 APPLN.569-2011 punishable under Sections 20 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. The prosecution case in brief is as under: The prosecution case is that the Anti-terrorist Squad had received reliable information that the accused were going to transport Charas to Pune by Pune-Patna Express. Accordingly, raid was organised and the accused were arrested. Accused were found to be in possession of 4.800 Kgs. of Charas in the bag which was seized from them. It appears that this court had given a direction to the Sessions Court to dispose of the case on or before 31.10.2010. The prosecution had examined three witnesses. However, the other witnesses did not remain present on the particular date. The Trial Court observed that in view of the fact that the High Court had directed that the case should be decided on or before 31.10.2010 and hence did not permit the prosecution to examine further witnesses and closed the prosecution case, and thereafter acquitted the accused. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submits that sufficient opportunity should have been given to the prosecution to 3 APPLN.569-2011 examine further witnesses and/or Sessions Court should have permitted the prosecution to apply for extension of time from the High Court. However, instead of granting that opportunity, the evidence was closed. 5. Since this being the admitted position which can be seen from the observations made by the Trial Court in paragraphs 3 and 8, in our view, the allegations against the accused are of serious nature, particularly when it is alleged that 4.800 Kgs of Charas was seized from the bag allegedly in the possession of the accused, the Trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to the prosecution to make an application to this court for extension of time. 6. In our view, this is a fit case to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court. The impugned order, therefore, is quashed and set aside. The prosecution is permitted to examine the remaining witnesses by recalling them by issuing fresh summons. The prosecution shall examine the said witnesses within three months from today. The Trial Court shall decide the case immediately thereafter. However, under these peculiar circumstances of the case, and in view of the acquittal order which was passed earlier by the Sessions Court, respondent nos.2 and 3 shall not be 4 APPLN.569-2011 arrested till the pendency of the appeal when they reappeared before the Trial Court. Respondents shall execute the fresh Bonds. 7. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)