[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN.APPLN.NO.313 OF 2008 Union of India ..Applicant Vs. Hakim Khan Pathan @ Wahid @ Wahid @ Salim @ Raja @ Munna and Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.D.N.Salvi Advocate for applicant Mr.S.S.Bhandary Adv.for Respondent no.1 Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 30, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 30, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 30, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard both sides. 2. The respondent nos.1 to 6-orignal accused are facing prosecution in Special Case No.32 of 2004 which is pending before the learned Sessions Judge under NDPS, Mumbai. The said case is under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 3. The prosecution case is that 5 kgs. of heroin [-2-] was seized from Mahindra Jeep. In the said case, Investigating Officer came to be examined. However, at that time, Jeep was not produced. Lateron, during the course of trial, Jeep came to be produced. Application was made for recall of Investigating Officer Mr.Henry for identification of the seized Jeep which was produced before the Court. The said application came to be allowed. The Investigating Officer was re-examined as well as cross-examined. 4. However, permission was again sought on the very same day for re-examining the Investigating Officer. Re-examination was sought because during his cross-examination, the Investigating Officer stated that he cannot comment whether in the cavity of the jeep, any heroin can be accommodated whereas in his examination in chief, he had deposed that five packets of 5 kgs. of heroin were seized from the said jeep. The heroin had been concealed in secret cavity made in hood of the aforesaid jeep. Hence, after cross-examination was over, immediately the learned Prosecutor sought permission to re-examine the Investigating Officer in respect of this contradiction. The said prayer [-3-] was rejected. An application also came to be preferred on the very same day for permission for re-examination of Mr.Henry, however, the said application came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. In my view, there is a contradiction which requires clarification and hence, in the interest of justice, it would be necessary to grant permission to the prosecution to re-examine the Investigating Officer Mr.Henry. Permission to recall and re-examine Investigating Officer Mr.Henry on this limited point, is granted. 6. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]