1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3317 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.599 OF 2007 Central Bureau of Investigation ..... Applicant vs. Yashwant J. Shah ..... Respondents Mr.D.N. Salvi,Advocate for applicant. Mr.Sorankar i/by Mr.N.M. Shah, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.S.R. Shinde, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 28th July 2009. PC : 1. Heard Advocates. 2. C.B.I. files this application to prefer appeal against judgment and order dated 6th June 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Court, Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.258 of 2005 allowing the same and setting aside the conviction against respondent no.1. The trial court i.e. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai by it’s judgment and order dated 12th April 2005 had convicted respondent no.1 of the offence punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to various punishments. His co-accused, one Suresh Mohanlal Vadecha was however acquitted by the trial Court. With the acquittal of the co-accused, respondent no.1 was acquitted of the offence under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. Respondent no.1 2 challenged his conviction by filing appeal to the Sessions Court, Bombay. 3. It is alleged that the applicant and the co-accused conspired and prepared false R.E.P. License in the name of M/s Gem Pearls Impex and sold the same to M/s Nipun International at a premium. On the basis of the said import license, M/s Nipun International imported rough diamonds. 4. The Sessions Court found several infirmities in the evidence of the applicant. The Sessions Court found that during the entire evidence, the prosecution was not sure about the identity of the broker who had struck the deal of forged license between M/s Nipun International and respondent no.1. The different names of the broker mentioned are Karamchand Jain, Karanchand Modi, Ramesh Amrutlal Mehta and Shevantilal Nagindas Shah. It also found that the prosecution examined a witness PW-2, whose statement was not recorded either by C.B.I. or by Police. Further the evidence of expert witness PW-14 dispels the applicant’s stand that the license was forged or that the respondent No.1 had any overt act to play with it. The appellate court also observed that there was no original panchanamas were produced by the prosecution. With these serious infirmities, there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, leave to 3 file appeal is refused. The Criminal Application No.3317 of 2007 is dismissed. Consequently the Criminal Appeal No.599 of 2007 is also dismissed. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J.)