The State Of Maharashtra vs Mohd. Zuber Mohd. Sharif Khan And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4631 Bom

                                            1/2                        3 Appeal 978-2007.doc




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 978 OF 2007

The State of Maharashtra
(Brihan Mumbai Crime Branch
LAC No.103/1998)                                       ....Appellant
                                                       (Orig. Complainant)
                  V/s.

Mohd. Zuber Mohd. Sharif Khan,
R/o. 1) 26, Shikari Galli
Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh.

2) Parpiya Bldg., 4th Floor,
Room No. 16, M.E. Sarang Marg,
Dongri, Mumbai - 400 009.                              ....Respondents
                                                       (Orig. Accused)
                                            ----
Ms. P.N. Dabholkar, APP for State.
None for Respondent/Accused.
                                            ----

                                         CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.

DATED : 12th MARCH, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 3 rd

May, 2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay

acquitting the respondent (hereinafter referred as accused) of offence

punishable under Section 4, 4 (a) ( Punishment for attempt to cause

explosion, or for making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or

property), 5 (Punishment for making or possessing explosives under

suspicious circumstances) of Explosive Substance Act and under Section 3

(Licence for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition), 25 (1-

A) r/w 25 (1-B) (a) (Punishment for certain offences) of Indian Arms Act.

Purti Parab




                                          2/2                        3 Appeal 978-2007.doc

2. Though Ms. Dabholkar made an attempt to convince the court

on the merits of the appeal, ultimately, in fairness to the court and as an

officer of the court agreed that views expressed by the Trial Court cannot be

faulted. This is because the prosecution has relied on seizure panchanama

dated 16/11/1998 but the panch witness P.W. 2 - Mohammed Ayub

Mohammed Umar was sighted as a panch witness in another case on the

same date and same time. The other panch witness P.W. 3 for recovery

turned hostile. Moreover, the car in which accused is supposed to have been

carrying the weapons has not been produced on record. There is no

evidence to show ownership of the car or the source of car or explosives.

Investigating Officer P.W. 6 has admitted that in their investigation the

connection of accused was not found with any other crime and procurement

of alleged weapons mentioned in the incriminating seizure. P.W. 6 also does

not state that he was present at the time of seizure panchanama. P.W. 3

panch witness does not even identify accused. Moreover, the co-accused

who was separately charged and tried separately has been acquitted by an

order dated 14th April, 2005. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the

Trial Court cannot be faulted.

3. Appeal dismissed.

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Purti Parab