Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 filed. 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 offered 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 offences, 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.

"24. The Section 23 of the MCOC Act which opens with non-obstante clause and further clothed with negative words clearly discloses the mandate of the legislature that the cognizance of the offences under the MCOC Act should not be in routine course, but only upon the facts disclosing the applicability thereof and satisfaction of the officer of the high rank, the minimum being of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, in that regard. In fact, the officer of such high rank is required to decide about the approval even for recording of FIR in relation to any offence under the MCOC Act. This obviously discloses that the approving authority has to apply its mind about the applicability of the provisions of the MCOC Act to the facts disclosed in a matter before allowing the recording of FIR and for the purpose, he must be, prima-facie, satisfied about the commission of ❞❢❡ offence of organized crime under the MCOC Act by the person or persons against whom the FIR is to be recorded. Obviously, for prima facie satisfaction regarding the commission of the offence of organized crime or of participation therein in whatever manner, the approving authority must have some materials before it disclosing the activities of the person or the persons to be of the nature of offence under the MCOC Act and having committed such activities on or after 24th February, 1999. In other words, the activities of a person to be termed as the offence under the MCOC Act, the same should inevitably disclose to have been committed on or after 24th February, 1999. If the activity of the person is relation to the period prior to 24th February, 1999, obviously, it cannot be said to be an offence under MCOC Act, even though the activity may be an offence under the provisions of some other statute in force at the relevant time. For the same reason, when the approval is granted for recording of FIR and the FIR is recorded, then such FIR should apparently disclose the activities constituting offence under the MCOC Act having been committed on or after 24th February, 1999. When the FIR does not disclose on the face of it that the offence was committed on or after 24th February, 1999, obviously, the concerned authority must be able to establish the said fact, at least, by referring to the records which were available and placed before the concerned authority before granting approval and before recording FIR. It should not be understood that the power vested in the authority under Section 23(1) of the MCOC Act can be exercised either as automation or as autocrat. The power should be exercised on application of mind to the facts of the case and with necessary prudence and circumspection."
"24. The contention that the order of approval or order of sanction should disclose consideration of material qua each of the accused sought to be prosecuted is devoid of substance. That is not the import of section 23 of MCOC Act. Section 23(1)(a) as well as section 23(2) with reference to approval and sanction speaks of commission of offence and cognizance of the offence. ... As already seen above section 23(1)(a) of MCOC Act speaks of approval for t✈✉ recording of information about commission of offence of organized crime under MCOC Act, whereas sanction is for initiating proceeding for the offence under MCOC Act. The sanction order or the approval order on the face of it need not speak of the individual role of each of the accused. Being so, contention that the order of approval or sanction should reveal consideration of the overt acts or otherwise of each of the accused while granting approval or sanction is totally devoid of substance. Of course, the involvement in organized crime of each of the persons sought to be prosecuted should necessarily be considered by the concerned authority before the grant of approval or sanction, but need not be specifically stated in the order and the consideration thereof can be established in the course of trial."

94. Similar view was taken by learned Single Judge in Dinesh Mahadev Bhondve Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2007(2) Mh.L.J.(Cri.) 718 on which the learned counsel for parties relied. In that case, a complaint from one Pujari of Kamshet was received for offence punishable under Section 387 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and the same was registered as Crime No.95 of 2001. During the enquiry it transpired that several criminal cases of serious offences were registered in the past against accused No.1, who was the head of gang, which was indulging in these offences. Therefore approval under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOC Act was sought and the Special Inspector General accorded approval, whereupon Crime No.54 of 2001 was registered under MCOC Act. After completing investigation, a report was submitted to the Director General of Police, who accorded sanction for prosecution. The prosecution was simpliciter under the provisions of MCOC Act and not associated with the offence reported by one Pujari of Kamshet. The Trial Court had convicted the appellants of offence under MCOC Act. While deciding the appeal, the learned Single Judge had ➌➎➍ quoted in para 18 of his judgment from paragraphs 25, 27 and 28 in Bharat Shah's case. The observations of the Court in paras 19, 21 and 22 of the judgment may be usefully reproduced as under :