Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4] The appellants on 30.08.2021 made an application for bail as per the provisions of Section 167(2) proviso (a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. It is the case of the appellants that the investigation in the crime commenced and apeal.429.2021 judge.odt on 30.05.2021 they were arrested. They were produced before the Magistrate on 31.05.2021. Initially the provisions of MCOC Act were not invoked. The same came to be added on 13.08.2021. The Special Public Prosecutor made an application on 20.08.2021 seeking extension of the detention period of the appellants upto 180 days on the ground that by that time the investigation could not be completed. The said application was rejected by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 27.08.2021. It is stated that on 27.08.2021 itself the investigating officer filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act and the Atrocity Act. The request was made to the Court in the said charge-sheet for conducting further investigation with liberty to file further charge-sheet for the offences punishable under the MCOC Act. On 30.08.2021 the appellants made an application for bail under Section 167(2). It is the case of the appellants that in order to overcome the order dated 27.08.2021, rejecting their application for extension of detention period, the investigating officer hurriedly filed incomplete and defective charge-sheet. No charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under the MCOC Act. Since the permission was rejected for further detention up to 180 days the right to be released on bail accrued in favour of the appellants.

9] We have minutely perused the record and proceedings. The undisputed facts having bearing with the question involved in this appeal needs to be stated. Initially in Crime No. 509 of 2021 the provisions of the MCOC Act were not applied. The investigating officer applied for apeal.429.2021 judge.odt approval of the Commissioner of Police, Amravati as per the provisions of Section 23(1) of the MCOC Act to apply the provisions of MCOC Act in this crime. The approval was accorded on 75th day of the arrest of the appellants i.e. on 13.08.2021. The application made by the Special Prosecutor in terms of the provisions of Section 21(2)(b) of the MCOC Act for extension of period of detention beyond 90 days and upto 180 days was rejected on 27.08.2021 for the reasons recorded in the said order. The investigating officer on 27.08.2021 filed the charge-sheet against the appellants before the learned Special Judge, Amravati for the offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, the Maharashtra Police Act and the Atrocity Act. The learned Judge took the cognizance of the offences. The learned Judge did not grant specific leave to the investigating officer as sought for carrying out further investigation and to file the supplementary charge-sheet for the offences under the MCOC Act. On 30.08.2021, the appellants made an application under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. The main contention of the appellants is that the charge-sheet filed by the investigating officer is incomplete and defective charge-sheet. The said charge-sheet could not be said to be a charge-sheet in the eye of law and therefore, due to filing of defective and incomplete charge-sheet the right of default bail accrued in favour of the apeal.429.2021 judge.odt appellants on expiry of the period of 90 days from the first production of the appellants before the learned Magistrate after their arrest. 10] In this case therefore, the main question that needs to be examined is whether the charge-sheet, as filed, could be said to be incomplete or defective charge-sheet. It is pertinent to mention that the investigation for the principal offence of murder under Section 302 of the IPC and other offences under the Arms Act, the Maharashtra Police Act and the Atrocity Act was complete on the date of the filing of the charge- sheet. In the application made by the appellants before the learned Special Judge as well as in this appeal memo there is no statement to demonstrate as to how the charge-sheet filed for this principal offence under Section 302 with other offences under the Arms Act, the Maharashtra Police Act and the Atrocity Act would be defective. In this background, it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. Sub Section 2 provides for filing of the charge-sheet as soon as the investigation is over. It also provides for the form of the charge-sheet. The photocopy of the charge-sheet, filed against the appellants, has been produced on record. The perusal of the same would show that it is strictly in conformity with the provisions of the Section apeal.429.2021 judge.odt 173(2). It is seen on perusal of the record that for the principal offence of murder under Section 302 and the offences under the Arms Act, the Maharashtra Police Act and the Atrocity Act no request has been made by the investigating officer for further investigation or for doing any other act to give finality to the charge-sheet which has been filed. The charge-sheet is complete. Once it is found that the charge-sheet filed under Section 173(2) is complete and in conformity with law to the extent of principal offence of murder and other offences it would be necessary to examine the other submissions.

11] The appellants opposed the application made by the Special Prosecutor dated 25.08.2021 for extension of period of detention of the appellants from 90 days to 180 days. The main crux of the objection was that the offences under the MCOC Act could not be applied against the appellants and therefore, no case was made out for extension of the detention period of the appellants upto 180 days. Perusal of the record would show that the stand taken by the appellants in the application made under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is self contradictory. The appellants are intending to take the benefit of the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(i). In the very next breath they have contended that no material has been apeal.429.2021 judge.odt placed on record to indicate that the offences under the provisions of the MCOC Act have been made out. The learned Special Judge while rejecting the said application vide order dated 27.08.2021 made certain observations. Without even venturing into the tenability of such observation at the preliminary stage of investigation, it is seen that the learned Judge categorically observed that the alleged illegal acts of the appellants are not prima facie covered in the definition of the 'organized crime' as provided under Section 2(e) of the MCOC Act. It is pertinent to mention that this observation at the preliminary stage of the case is in favour of the appellants. The learned Special Judge, taking note of the material on record, was pleased to reject the application made by the Special Prosecutor for authorizing the detention of the appellants upto 180 days.

12] A statement is made in the reply by the learned APP that the State intends to challenge this order, however, the fact remains that the said order is not yet challenged. At this stage, therefore, the contention of the appellants that the charge-sheet is defective and incomplete charge- sheet for the principal offence of murder needs appreciation. In our view, if the undisputed facts and the material on record is appreciated and apeal.429.2021 judge.odt considered in proper prospective it would indicate that the charge-sheet filed against the appellants could not be said to be defective or incomplete charge-sheet. The learned Judge for the reasons recorded vide order dated 27.08.2021 rejected the prayer for further detention of the appellants upto 180 days to enable the investigating officer to conduct the investigation qua the offences under the MCOC Act. In our view the appellants cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold from the same pipe. They seem to be satisfied with the observations of the learned Judge that the offences under the MCOC Act are not prima facie made out. At the same time, besides taking the advantage of the said order and getting rid of provisions of MCOC Act they have audacity to contend that the charge-sheet filed against them is incomplete and defective. We are not prepared to accept this contention.