1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Application No.2577 of 2008 IN Criminal Appeal No. of 2008 Union of India. .. .. Applicants (Orig.Complainants) v/s. Milind Kamlakar Keny & ors. .. Respondents (Res.Nos.1 to 3 Orig.Accused Nos.1 to 3) Mr.R.F. Lambay for Applicants. Mr.P.A.Pol, APP for State. ---- CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. Dated : 27th August, 2009 P.C. : 1.We have heard Mr.Lambay, the learned Counsel for the Union of India at length. 2.We have gone through the reasoned and lengthy judgment and order dated 31.12.2007 rendered by the learned Special Judge under the NDPS Act, for Greater Mumbai, in NDPS Special Case No.59 of 2003 in which in all three accused have been acquitted solely by giving benefit of doubt. The learned Judge noted that the prosecution case suffered from contradictions on all counts and the investigation till the charge-sheet was filed was let loose and diluted. The learned Judge 2 noted several contradictions in addition to the fact that all the accused had retracted their confessional statements when they appeared before the competent Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. So far as process of sending the samples or sealing the samples is concerned, the Special Court noticed the material contradictions in the date as well as description of the contraband. As the confessional statements were retracted, the Special Court proceeded to examine the prosecution case with care and caution and independent of the confessional statements. The Special Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations of conspiracy between the accused and that the contraband was seized from them, beyond a reasonable doubt. 3.We cannot find any fault with the view taken by the learned Special Judge and the reasoning set out by him in support of the order of acquittal does not suffer from any count. The prosecution must squarely blame the faulty investigation that was undertaken after the contraband was seized on the specific information that had been received. It is high time that the officers concerned tighten their belts and do something more to ensure that the investigation is undertaken so as to follow the procedure laid down in the NDPS Act to the letter and spirit so that the offenders do not go scot- free, mainly on the ground of benefit of doubt which 3 arises on account of a defective investigation or dishonest investigation. 4.We are satisfied that there is no case made out to grant leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, leave to appeal is hereby rejected. 5.Copy of this order be forwarded to the Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, so that future corrective steps are taken and the officer concerned is held responsible for carrying out faulty investigation and proceeded against as per the Rules. [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]