Mohammed Firoz Mohammed Saddik Punjani v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

- 2 -criappln4516.24.odt2.Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the implication of the Applicant is on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, which is impermissible in law. Except the bare assertions at the instance of the co-accused, there is no incriminating material on record collected during the course of investigation. As such, learnedCounsel for the Applicant submits that continuation the proceeding would lead to abuse of process of law and prays for exercise of inherent powers so as to meet the ends of justice. 3. Per contra, learned APP opposed the application submitting that the Applicant is involved in an offence under Indian Penal Codeand the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006.4.Heard learned Counsel for the litigating sides. It is a matter of record that the name of the present Applicant is not disclosed in the First Information Report. It is only on the basis of the statement ofco-accused, the Applicant has been implicated in the crime. Perusalof statement of the co-accused indicates that the role of the presentApplicant is only to the extent of loading the contraband in the truck. However, the said statement is inadmissible in law. Whenconfronted with the availability of material against the present - 3 -criappln4516.24.odtApplicant, which is admissible in law, the learned APP is not in aposition to demonstrate the same. As such, further continuation of the proceeding against the present Applicant would lead to abuse of process of law and as such the same is liable to be quashed and setaside. 5. Accordingly, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause‘B’ and ‘C’. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) dyb