KAMAL ANSARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellants are facing trial in Case No. 21 of 2006 pending before the MCOCA Special Judge, Mumbai. The appellants herein are challenging the order passed by the Special Judge below Exhibit 3647 dated 1.3.2013 thereby rejecting the application filed by the present appellants to examine six persons as defence witnesses.

(2.) In the course of hearing the present Appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellants candidly submits that he would withdraw his prayer of examining (1) Santosh Prakash Khanvilkar, (2) Ramanand Marutirao Machewad, (3) Amit Rangnath Punja, (4) Vijaykumar Babanna Rayappa, (5) Suresh Shekhar Suvarna, and the then Collector of Mumbai Suburban District, Mumbai. However, the appeal is restricted to the prayer for examining ACP Kishan Shengal of Anti Terrorism Squad.

(3.) The Counsel for the appellants submits that the Investigating Agency has filed the charge sheet on 29.11.2006. In the list of witnesses annexed along with the charge-sheet, the name of ACP Kishan Shengal is at Sr. No. 330. It is submitted that the prosecution, for the reasons best known to it, has not examined ACP Shengal as a prosecution witness and hence the same has caused prejudice to the accused. The Counsel for the appellants submits that ACP Shengal was supervising the investigation of this case for a substantial period. He was supervising the investigation when the recovery of traces of RDX were found in the house of accused Nos. 6, 13 and 3. His name is reflected in the Station Diary as well as the panchnama. According to the Counsel for the appellants, he would be the best person to throw light upon the recovery of traces of RDX. It is the contention of the Counsel for the appellants that the remainder of the RDX used in Malegaon Bomb Blast case of 2006 was used in this case. It is alleged by the Counsel that the investigation under the supervision of ACP Shengal has not been a fair investigation and it is necessary to examine him as a defence witness since the prosecution has not examined him.