The State Of Maharashtra vs Asif Gani Shaikh @ Pinjari
2017 Latest Caselaw 3112 Bom

                                                                                 7. cri apeal 327-17.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 327 OF 2017


            The State of Maharashtra                                     .. Appellant

                                 Versus
            Asif Gani Shaikh @ Pinjari                                   .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar                          APP for the State / Appellant
                                                  ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : JUNE 13, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant - State

of Maharashtra against the order dated 05.10.2015 passed

by the MCOC Special Judge at Greater Bombay below Exh. 24

in MCOC Special Case No. 14 of 2015. By the said order, the

application of the respondent - original accused No. 7 for

discharge came to be allowed. The said case is under

Sections 302 r/w 511 and 120-B of IPC, under various

sections of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

7. cri apeal 327-17.doc

the MCOC Act.

2. Though the name of the respondent - original accused

No. 7 is found in the FIR, there is no eye witness who

implicates him in the crime. It is the prosecution case that

the respondent supplied the weapon to one of the accused,

however, there is no material to show that respondent

supplied any weapon to accused Nos. 1 or 2. The only

material against the respondent is CDR showing that he

made calls to accused No. 1 - Aniket Jadhav and the

respondent sent three SMS to accused No. 1.

3. It is an admitted fact that there is no transcript of these

calls or SMS. In fact, during the said period, calls were made

by the respondent to various other persons. It is pertinent to

note that none of the calls between accused No. 1 and the

respondent were intercepted by the police, hence, the

conversation between the two during these calls is not

known. So also the contents of the SMS is not available.

jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         2 of 3





                                                          7. cri apeal 327-17.doc

Thus, there is absolutely nothing on record to know the

nature and subject matter of the conversation or the SMS. In

absence thereof, it is difficult to connect the respondent to

the crime.

4. In view of the above, we cannot find any error with the

conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court while

discharging the respondent that the material against him is

not sufficient to frame charges against him and therefore, he

is entitled to be discharged.

5. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere.

The appeal is dismissed.

[ SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. ]             [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                       3 of 3