Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

. These Appeals assail the common Judgment and Order dated 31st August 2012 delivered by the Special Judge, MCOC Act, Gr. Mumbai in MCOC Special Case No.7 of 2008 and other connected matters, whereby the said Court convicted -

(a) Arun Gulab Gawali (A-1), Sandip @ Sandy Baliram Gangan (A-9), Shrikrishna @ Babu Tukaram Gurav (A-10), Pratap Tukaram Godse (A-12), Ajit Chandrakant Rane (A-13), Suresh Raghunath Patil (A-15) and Sunil Sadashiv Ghate (A-20) for the ofences punishable under Section 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999 and sentenced each of them to sufer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fne of Rs.5.00 Lac. each, & in default of fne, sentenced them to sufer rigorous imprisonment for three years.

(j) PW-33 Divakar Shelke sent a proposal to the Joint Commissioner of Police for obtaining prior approval (Exh.421) under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOC Act and the said approval was granted on 20th May 2008, to register the ofence under MCOC Act. Further investigation was carried out by PW-37 ACP Duraphe. He arrested Arun Gawli (A-1), Sahebrao Bhintade (A-

6) and Sadashiv Surve (A-7) under the provisions of MCOC Act.

(k) During the course of investigation, Ashokkumar Jaiswar (A-3), Narendra Giri (A-4), Anil Giri (A-5), Sandeep Gangan (A-9), Shrikrishna Gurav (A-10) and Dinesh Narkar (A-

119. 2012 (4) LJSOFT 152=2012 Cr.L.J. 2651--

Lt.Col.Prasad Shrikant Purohit & ors. Vs. National Investigation Agency & ors. is the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court which deals with Section 25 of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999, Section 173(8) & S.309 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 & Section 6(1), 6(5) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 . Issue regarding further investigation arose in said matter after transfer of Malegaon Blast investigation to NIA. Efect of special Act over General Act has been answered therein in the light of Art. 254(2) of Constitution of India, 1950. Ofences under MCOC Act were initially investigated by ATS and charge-sheet came to be fled. Subsequently NIA took over investigation after a FIR was registered. Application fled u/s 21(7) of MCOC Act by NIA for interrogation of the petitioners was allowed & their police custody was permitted for 8 days. Learned Single Judge of this Court found that S. 21(7) of MCOC Act has overriding efect on section 167 of Cr.P.C. It also held that NIA Act 73 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc does not put any restriction on the investigating agency to investigate or further investigate and permits new agency to take over pending investigation. Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. does not envisage that further investigation has to be by same investigating agency. Learned Single Judge has held that due to express provisions in section 25 of MCOC Act and by virtue of Article 254(2) of The Constitution of India, special laws providing special procedures must prevail and no provision in Cr.P.C. could defeat or dilute the sweep of such special law.

112 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc

158. The Division Bench of this Court in Madan Gangawani v. State of Maharashtra Cr. Appeal 308/2002 d/o 26.3.2009 at Nagpur, has observed--

"51. The learned counsel for appellants submitted that evidence of P.Ws. 11 Rajesh, 17 Ravindra, 18 Subhash and 22 Jayant could not be received in this case, since it pertained to an ofence which was separately tried. They relied on judgment in Vijay Kisan Mate Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2007 ALL MR (Cri.) 3471, where the Court was considering an appeal under Section 12 of the MCOC Act against an order rejecting the application by the accused to defer cross-examination. This came in the context of an application by the prosecution to amend the charge so as to exclude charge of murder of one Swapnil Shirke in respect of which a separate chargesheet has been fled. Thereafter, the prosecution resiled from its own stand and sought to tender evidence of murder in case of MCOC Act. The learned single Judge held that in the said case under MCOC Act the actual proof of crime need not be ofered unless that crime was also being tried together. The learned single Judge, therefore, held as corollary that the act of the Special Judge allowing the eyewitness of a murder case to be examined in MCOC Act trial, without there being a joint trial of both the ofences, will have to be quashed and that the said witness shall not be further examined in MCOC Act case, and that the case should be tried as if the said witness was never examined at MCOC Act trial.