LAWS(BOM)-2005-2-66

NARESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On February 17, 2005
NARESH SHARMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Briefly stated, the Applicant was arrested on 7th September, 2004 in connection with C. R. No. 246 of 2004 registered with dahisar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 452, 342, 394, 395, 397, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('i. P. C. ') read with Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act read with Sections 3 (1) (ii) , 3 (2) and 3 (4) of the maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 ('mcoca').

(3.) The statutory period for filing charge-sheet under Section 167 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 ('code') would have ordinarily expired on 5th December, 2004. However, no charge-sheet could be filed on account of the file pending before the appropriate Authority for according sanction in respect of offences punishable under mcoca. In that backdrop, report of the public Prosecutor was submitted on 5th december, 2004 requesting for extension of time in terms of provisions under Section 21 (4) of the MCOCA read with Section 167 of the code. The said report was considered by the court and after giving opportunity to the applicant and other acqused, the Court extended the time till 16th December, 2004. No charge-sheet was filed till then, nor any formal report was submitted by the Public prosecutor for seeking further extension giving reasons for further detention of the accused beyond the statutory period to be specified in the said report. On the other hand, an application which came to be filed by the assistant Commissioner of Police and investigating Officer, Dahisar Division, mumbai, which was presented through Public prosecutor, clearly asserts that the competent authority has not accorded the sanction to prosecute the accused as required under section 23 (2) of the MCOCA and, to grant permission to file the charge-sheet in the regular Court. As there was no formal report by the Public Prosecutor for extension of time, there was no occasion for the Trial Court to grant further extension. Indeed, the Trial Court ordered the Applicant to be sent to judicial custody till 20th December, 2004; and by a detailed order running into about 14 pages, impressed upon the Commissioner as to why it was necessary to accord sanction and that be done at the earliest. This order was passed on 16th December, 2004.