[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2259 OF 2008 Smt.Nusrat Gulam Mohd. Khan ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondents ... Mr.A.R.Khan Advocate for applicant Mr.H.J.Dedia 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 : JULY 29, 2008 DATE : JULY 29, 2008 DATE : JULY 29, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This is an application for transfer of NDPS Special Case pending before one Special Judge under NDPS Act, Gr.Bombay to another Special Judge in the same sessions division. 3. The applicant is facing prosecution in NDPS Special Case No.90 of 2007. The trial in the said case was going on before H.H.J. Shri.P.B.Sawant. [-2-] While the trial was going on, P.W.3 produced weighing scales before the Court with an intention to weigh the contraband, however, the court did not allow the said witness to weigh the contraband but the APP was instructed to convey and discuss with the Investigating Officer. Thereafter the Court observed that as the APP was not present for demonstration, instructions were issued to keep the Investigating Officer present. On account of developments in relation to the incident which occurred in the Court on 26.3.2008 wherein PW 3 had produced weighing scales for weighing the contraband and in view of the atmosphere which developed pursuant thereto, transfer application was preferred by the applicant. The learned Principal Judge called for report from the concerned Sessions Judge. After perusing the said report, the transfer application came to be rejected by the learned Principal Judge. 4. On perusal of the order of the learned Principal Judge, it is seen that application for transfer came to be rejected inter alia on the following grounds: [-3-] i] That the advocate has withdrawn the contention of weighment. ii] That after the filing of transfer application before the trial Court, the advocate has conducted the trial. 5. The transfer application was initially filed before the learned Sessions Judge who conducted the trial. The said application was filed on 28.3.2008. The report shows that after filing of the transfer application before the trial Court, the advocate has conducted the trial. The learned Principal Judge rejected the application by order dated 16.6.2008. The Roznama of the trial Court shows that from 28.3.2008, the matter has not proceeded. The learned advocate has not conducted the trial. The material on record also shows that the advocate has not withdrawn the contention relating to weighing the contraband. Thus, it is seen that the report submitted by the trial Court is incorrect. Looking to these facts, it would not be appropriate that the trial proceeds before the very same Judge, hence, in my view, case is made out for transfer of the case. [-4-] 6. N.D.P.S. Spl.Case No.90 of 2007 is transferred from the file of HHJ Shri.P.B.Sawant to any other Court dealing with N.D.P.S. cases in the same Sessions Division. 7. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]