MADHUKAR TIKARAM KULTHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by accused No.22 in C.R. No.135/2002 registered at Bund Garden Police station, Pune. The Offences alleged are forgery, cheating punishable under Indian Penal Code and under Bombay stamp Act so also various sub-sections of section 3 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter for short referred to as MCOC Act).

(2.) MR . Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, does not dispute that the applicant had applied for being released on bail but the said application was not pressed on merits and all that was sought was temporary bail on medical grounds for undergoing eye surgery. That application was disposed of by this court and the surgery was performed thereafter.

(3.) SECOND submission of Shri Pradhan is that the approval granted in this case is wholly vitiated in as much as a approval contemplated under section 23(1)(a) of the Act is to be granted by a Police Officer not below the rank of DIG of Police and it must be qua each accused, There cannot be a general approval in so far as the case is concerned. He submits that the approval is contrary to section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act. That apart, the authority granting the approval is one Mr. Jaiswal, who was put in charge of the investigations in this case. This very authority/officer has granted approval and therefore, it cannot be said that the same is in accordance with the principles of fairness, equity and justice so also in time with the provisions of MCOC Act. For all these reasons, the application be allowed. Shri Pradhan invites my attention to portions of the charge-sheet wherein the role attributed to the applicant is set out.