CHHANNULAL PANDURANG SHENDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. T.H. Udeshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. RULE. Rule returnable forthwith. By the present criminal writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the common order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, dated 18.10.2013 hereby allowing Misc. Cri. Application Nos. 32, 33, 34 and 35 of 2013 filed by the State seeking extension of MCR of the petitioners. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 3001/2013, registered at Bhamragad police station for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and 3/25 of the Arms Act and Sections 13, 18 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the UAP Act") read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present petition can be summarized as follows: -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, by inviting my attention to the relevant provisions of Sec. 43D and 43D(2)(a) and (b) of the UAP Act, submitted that said provisions would come into play on satisfying two important conditions of sub -section 2(b) of Section 43 of the Act. He submitted that such an extension can be granted on satisfaction of the learned Judge on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating progress of the investigation. The learned counsel further submitted that the scheme of the Act thus provides that the report must be of the Public Prosecutor indicating progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the period of 90 days and the order passed by the learned Judge should reflect the satisfaction of the Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that satisfaction of the learned Judge is dependent upon his application of mind. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that all these basic requirements are missed by the learned Sessions Judge and resulted in passing an erroneous order thereby curtailing the liberty of present petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the provisions of Section 43D of the UAP Act are in pari materia with the provisions of Section 21 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).