7-REVN-533-2025 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 533 OF 2025 Amarjeet Shamsher Singh … Applicant VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra … Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Kamlesh Mishra a/w Mr. Dilip Kamath and Mr. Sagar Kamath, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S.S.Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this application is to the order date 29.10.2025 below Exhibit-11 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Brihanmumbai, whereby discharge application preferred by the applicant came to be rejected. 2. It is prosecution’s case that on 10.11.2018, the police apprehended the co-accused and from their possession seized 1430 bottles of Codeine Phosphate Syrup with the label of the company M-Crox. It is alleged that the said bottles were supplied to the co-accused by the applicant. 3. It is contention of the applicant that the applicant has been SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date: 2026.08.31 15:04:35 +0530 7-REVN-533-2025 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the statement of co-accused. Except the statement of co-accused, nothing has been produced on record to show the involvement of the applicant in the crime. However, this fact is not considered by the learned Special Judge and has erroneously passed the order and requested to allow the application. He relied on the Judgment of this Court i.e. Savitri Periyaswami Devendra Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Revision Application No. 498 of 2016)1. 4. It is contention of learned APP that co-accused were apprehended by the police with the contraband and the said contraband was supplied to them by the applicant. There are specific allegations against the applicant. The learned Special Judge has passed well reasoned order and no interference is required in it and requested to reject the application. 5. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused impugned order and documents produced on record. It is alleged that the seized contraband were supplied to the co-accused by the applicant. Except the statement of co-accused, no material is produced on record to connect the applicant with the crime. Moreover, no CDR is produced on record to show that the applicant was in contact with the co-accused. In absence of any material connecting applicant with the alleged offence, continuation of trial against him would amount to abuse of process of law. As there is no 1 2018 BHC-AS : 5609 7-REVN-533-2025 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje material at all against the applicant to proceed against him, I pass following order. ORDER (i) The Revision Application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant is discharged in Special Case (N.D.P.S.) No. 130 of 2019 pending before the A.N.C. Ghatkopar Unit, Mumbai. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)