JAMIRUDDIN ANSARI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in SLP(Crl.)No.5677/2007.

(2.) Criminal Appeal Nos. 1085, 1088 and 1089 of 2006 have been taken up for final disposal along with SLP(Crl.)No.5677 of 2007, inasmuch as, they arise out of the same set of facts and common questions of law are involved. SLP(Crl.)No.5677 of 2007 has been filed by Jamiruddin Ansari, challenging the order passed by the Bombay High Court on 16th April, 2007, rejecting his prayer for bail, although, he is in custody since his arrest on 10th October, 2004, without trial. Criminal Appeal No. 1085/06 has been filed by Ashok, son of Gyanchand Vohra, against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 127 of 2005, which had been heard by a Bench of three Judges on a reference being made to resolve two conflicting views which had been taken by two Division Benches of the Bombay High Court relating to the interpretation of Section 9(1) vis--vis Section 23 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as MCOCA ). Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 2006 has been filed by one Shabbir Noormohamed Patel, raising the same questions as those raised in Criminal Appeal No. 1085/06. Criminal Appeal No. 1089 of 2006 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra, challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 22nd December, 2005, on the question as to whether the Special Court could take cognizance of an offence on a private complaint under Section 9(1) of MCOCA and order investigation in respect thereof under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

(3.) The common thread running through these appeals is the question as to whether an investigation could be ordered by the Special Court constituted under MCOCA, save and except in accordance with Section 23(1) of MCOCA, and interplay, if any, between Section 9(1) and Section 23 of MCOCA. In order to understand the context in which these questions have arisen, it is necessary to briefly set out the facts of the case.