RANJAN MOHANDAS KADRI Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant (Orig. accused No. 4) has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 7/02/2009 passed by Learned Special Judge (Under the M.C.O.C. Act, 1999), Greater Bombay, in MCOC Special Case Nos. 4 of 2008 and MCOC Special Case No. 4 -A of 2008. By said judgment and order the learned Spl. Judge convicted the appellant u/s. 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default to suffer one year SI. The appellant also convicted u/s. 326 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and fine of Rs. 10,000/ - in default to suffer SI for two years. The appellant also convicted of the offence u/s. 506(ii) of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default to suffer SI for six months. The appellant/accused No. 4 was also convicted u/ss. 3(1)(ii) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/ -, in default further RI for three years. The appellant/accused No. 4 was also convicted u/s. 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/ -, in default further RI for three years. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order the appellant/accused No. 4 has preferred this appeal on various grounds as set out in the memo of appeal. In brief the facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Jagdish Shetty, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Bhonsale, learned APP for the respondent -State. We have perused the oral and documentary evidence on record. We have also examined the reasons and findings recorded by learned Spl. Judge in convicting the appellant.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mrs. Bhonsale, learned APP for the State has supported the judgment and order passed by the trial court. By referring the testimony of Kiran Sahil (PW 13), and Subhash Limbachiya (PW 24) and call detail reports, the learned APP has submitted that the prosecution has established the complicity of the appellant in commission of offence.