3-REVN-406-2025 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 406 OF 2025 Parvez Narsulla Khan Urf Chinku Pathan ...Applicant/s Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Ayaz Khan along with Ms. Zehra Charania, Mr. Dilip Mishra and Ms. Mallika Sharma, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State. PSI- Sanjay Patil with IO-Joshty, API, V. P. Road, Police Station, present. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this revision application is to the order of rejection of the discharge application filed by the applicant. 2. It is prosecution's case that on 18th July 2019, the police apprehended accused No. 1 and found 10 grams of Mephedrone (MD) in his possession. On 31st July 2019, accused No. 2 was arrested by the police and 10 grams of MD were found in his possession. The present applicant was arrested on 30th August 2019. It is alleged that the applicant had supplied the contraband to accused No. 2. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that except the statement of accused No. 2, no other document is produced on record SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.09.12 15:40:28 +0530 3-REVN-406-2025 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam to show that the applicant supplied the contraband to accused No. 2. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. However, this fact was not considered by learned Special Judge. Hence, requested to allow the application. 4. It is contention of learned APP that the statement of witness- Jagdish Soni is recorded, in which, he has stated that the applicant used to supply contraband to accused No. 2. There is a prima facie case against the applicant. Learned Special Judge has passed a well-reasoned order and no interference is required in it, and requested to reject the application. 5. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the impugned order. Except the statement of the co-accused, the prosecution has relied on the statement of witness-Jagdish Soni. In his statement, he has stated that the applicant used to supply contraband to accused No. 2, and that on one occasion he had gone to meet the applicant along with accused No. 2, but the applicant was not present as he was absconding. The statement of this witness shows that he did not meet the applicant along with accused No. 2, and hence, the statement of this witness is hearsay. No other material is produced on record to connect the applicant to the present crime. Continuing the trial against the applicant would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence, I pass following order: 3-REVN-406-2025 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam O R D E R (1)The impugned order dated 10th September 2025 below Exhibit 7 in NDPS Special Case No.82 of 2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), City Civil and Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay, is quashed and set aside. (ii) The applicant is discharged in NDPS Special Case No.82 of 2021. The revision application is allowed in above terms and disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)