MOHAMMED CHAND MULANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBMISSIONS of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. This is an application for bail made by the Applicant who was at the relevant time an Assistant commissioner of Police at Pune. The offence is relating to printing of counterfeit stamp papers and sale thereof in different parts of the country. This offence had threatened the economy of the country. The principal accused in this case is Abdul Karim Telgi, who will hereinafter be referred to "the said telgi". The allegation of the prosecution is that the counterfeit stamps and the machinery used for printing the stamps worth rs. 2189 crores has been seized by the Police and the investigating agency. The prosecution has applied various sections of the indian Penal Code and the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 against the accused in the present case. Later on charge under sections 3 (2) and 24 of the Maharashtra control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 was added. On 7th June, 2002, FIR was registered at Bund Garden Police Station, Pune on the basis of recovery of fake stamps and stamp tickets from an Indica Car. Considering the facts of the case, the provisions of the MCOC Act were applied to the case. On 2nd November, 2002, the investigation was entrusted to a Special Investigating Team constituted by the State Government. Later on the investigation was entrusted to C. B. I.

(2.) BEFORE referring to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to the general nature of allegations in the supplementary charge-sheet with which we are concerned in this application, which are as under:

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant has invited my attention to the relevant part of the charge sheets as well as the documents produced along with the charge sheets. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant is that the Applicant was never in-charge of the investigation of the crime which was registered by Bund Garden Police Station. In fact the entire investigation was being supervised by the Additional commissioner of Police (Crime-I), Pune and at the relevant time one Shri Mushrif was holding the said post. He submitted that note sheets which are produced by the prosecution indicate that the note sheets were prepared for reporting by the police officers to the superior officers about the investigation done by the investigating officer and the note sheets cannot be converted into a substantive piece of evidence. He relied upon the observations made by the Apex Court while deciding the case of (Ranjitsing brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of mahrashtra and another), reported in 2005 (2) Bom. C. R. (Cri.) (S. C.)567 : J. T. 2005 (4) S. C. 123, and submitted that even the Apex Court observed that Shri Mushrif was keen to see that the charge-sheet should not be filed against the relatives of telgi. He submitted that the Apex Court found that it was Mushriff who was responsible for the entire investigation and he was supervising the investigation. He submitted that the Applicant had no control over the investigation. He submitted that even going by the version of the prosecution witnesses, a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs was allegedly accepted by the Applicant for the purpose of giving certain facilities to elgi. He submitted that acceptance of an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs is not sufficient to establish nexus of the Applicant with the organised crime activity of the organized crime syndicate headed by the said Telgi. He submitted that there is no substance in the allegation of the prosecution that at the instance of the applicant the names of some of accused were not reflected in the first charge-sheet. He submitted that the record shows that there was inaction on the part of the P. I. Prakash Deshmukh. He submitted that there is a vast difference between the role played by the Accused No. 44, who is another Police Officer Dilip Kamath and the applicant. He submitted that even taking the statements of the prosecution witnesses as it is, it cannot be said that the Applicant has aided and abetted the organized crime syndicate of the principal accused Telgi. He submitted that the Applicant came into the picture long after Telgi was put under arrest by the Bangalore Police and the said telgi was never released on bail. He submitted that as there was no material to show that the Applicant has abetted the offence, in the light of the Judgment of the Apex court in Ranjit Sharma's case, at the highest what can be said is that section 24 of the MCOC Act will be attracted and the maximum punishment under section 24 of the MCOC Act is three years. He submitted that the Applicant has been in custody from 4th December 2003 and almost two years have passed and there is no possibility of an early conclusion of the trial. On this ground alone the Applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. He submitted that apart from the offence under section 24 of the mcoc Act, the offence which might have been committed by the Applicant is under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He submitted that after objective consideration of the material on record, it is impossible to say that the Applicant can be convicted for the offence punishable under the MCOC Act on the basis of such material.