KASHIFA KAUSAR SAYED SIRAJODDIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dtd. 27/11/2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Revision Application No. 49 of 2021, thereby rejecting the revision filed against the order dtd. 15/3/2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, in R.C.C. No. 63 of 2019, by which the discharge application preferred by the original accused No. 2 Kashifa Kausar Sayed Sirajoddin and accused No. 3 Sayed Rauf Ali came to be rejected.

(2.) Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned APP appearing for the State.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been implicated in the present crime solely on the basis of the statement of a co-accused, which is not admissible in law. The crime was initially registered against one accused; however, subsequently, on the basis of the statement of the arrested accused, the present petitioners have been deliberately implicated without there being any independent evidence against them. It is submitted that the charge-sheet would show that no essential commodities were found in the possession of the present petitioners. The auto-rickshaw was found at Khashbag, which is far away from the school premises. Petitioner No.1, who was the In-charge Head Mistress of the school, was attending an official meeting at the Zilla Parishad from 10.00 a.m. to 04.00 p.m., and a certificate of attendance issued by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, confirms her presence at the said meeting. Therefore, the very basis of the allegation that petitioner No.1 had handed over the gunny bag containing rice to the arrested accused is doubtful. It is contended that the charge-sheet itself does not disclose sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners and, therefore, the discharge application ought to have been allowed.