KALPANATH RAJARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Kalpanath Rajaram Singh filed a criminal writ petition no.761 of 1995 for quashing the distress warrant issued against him by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Court at Bombay. The stand of the applicant is that he never stood suerty for accused by name Ishraq Khan as alleged. It was alleged that without holding any inquiry but merely on the perusal of the documents the learned Judge passed the order. After hearing the parties by order dated 1.9.1995 issuance of distress warrant by the learned Judge, by his order dated 28th June 1995, was quashed. The whole proceeding was remanded to the learned Judge, directing the learned Judge to hold a regular enquiry in the matter, record evidence affording the petitioner and the State an opportunity to adduce evidence, in accordance with law and, thereafter, record a finding as to whether the petitioner was the person who had stood surety as alleged. The learned Judge was directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with the result of the enquiry. The learned Judge was also directed to go into the other aspect of the matter i.e. the flat belonging to the petitioner is hardly 300 sq.ft whereas the Collector of Bombay has mentioned the said flat as admeasuring 2000 sq.ft valued at about Rs.30 lacs. In pursuance of the aforesaid order the learned Judge proceeded with the enquiry as directed. After enquiry proceeded and during its pendency, the petitioner has filed the present application. The prayers are that the learned Judge be directed to allow the petitioner through his counsel to cross-examine the witnesses, that opinion of the handwriting expert be obtained; that the enquiry be transferred to any other Judges that DCB, CID be directed to trace the person responsible for forging the signature of the petitioner. Curiously, the enquiry, which this court had directed at the behest of the petitioner, is also sought to be stayed by the proceeding. In fact by adinterim order the said inquiry was stayed. However, on the last date of hearing, we had vacated the said stay and directed the enquiry to proceed. The matter was adjourned as we were informed that the police are also making inquiry into the matter and they would submit their report to this court. Accordingly Shri Nalawade, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted a report by the police. We have perused the report. After reading the said report we are of the opinion that all these aspects will have to be gone into by the learned Special Judge, who is holding enquiry in pursuance to our order. Most of the prayers are in the nature of controlling proceedings in a particular fashion before the learned Judge, which course we are not inclined to adopt. If ultimately, after holding the enquiry, as directed by us, the petitioner is not satisfied with the ultimate outcome of the proceedings, he will be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law, by adopting appropriate proceedings as permissible in law. On the basis of the material we do not find any merit in this application and the application is accordingly rejected. Application dismissed.