SSK/ 1 revn 578.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 578 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant (Through Naupada Police Station) (Original Complainant) Versus Abdul Mohd. Sheikh ...Respondent (Original Accused No.3) Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the applicant. Mr. Ayaz Khan and Ms. Zehra Charania, advocates for the respondent CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 9th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Shitole, learned APP for the applicant and Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By the present revision application, the State seeks to challenge Order dated 6th July, 2011 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S.) Act, Thane in Special Case (N.D.P.S.) No.28 of 2009 below Exh.2. By the said order, the application of the respondent was allowed and he was discharged under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. from the C.R.No.II-47/09 of Naupada Police Station under Sections 8(c), 20 and 29 of the N.D.P.S.Act. SSK/ 2 revn 578.10 3. Respondent was shown as accused no.3 in Special Case (N.D.P.S.) No.28 of 2009. It is alleged that an information was received on 28th March, 2009 that the present applicant and his mother-in-law are selling Charas near Khoja Kabrastan and a lady by name Sarita, resident of Kalyan was to come to purchase the said charas from them. A trap was arranged by Naupada Police Station. The transaction was alleged to have been completed between the respondent, an old lady and a young lady by exchanging of the commodities. The raiding party rushed towards for apprehending them. However, the respondent escaped. He was chased, but could not be found. The respondent was subsequently arrested. However, no identification parade of the accused was conducted. The information though was in the name of respondent, the statement of witness does not disclose any overt act of respondent. No contraband was seized from the respondent. Even prosecution has not recorded statement of any person who has identified the respondent as the same person who ran away at the time of raid. The statement of the co-accused as well as the statement of respondent before the Police is not admissible in view of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that there is no prima-facie material against the present respondent even for framing the charge. After going through the impugned SSK/ 3 revn 578.10 order, I find that the view taken by learned Special Judge is possible view, which cannot be disturbed in the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)