MANILAL PITAMBAR DHARIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN intricate question croped up in this proceeding is as to whether successive applications could be made under section 3 read with section 4 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance 1944.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the issue are precisely as thus :

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr.Nalwade, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the order was passed in contemplation of the chargesheet which was subsequently filed on 30th October 1992, for the offence punishable under section 13(1) read with section 13(2) for which process was issued on 28th September 1993. The impugned order was passed during the pendency. Mr.Nalawade placing reliance upon the decision reported in 1984 Cri.L.J.1703 Inspector General of Police, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department Government of Bihar vs. Central Manbhum Coal Company P.Ltd. & Ors. made a submission that the scheme of the Criminal Law Amendment does not create any bar either express or implied for making successive applications. He further urged that section 3 and 4 are enabling provisions whereas section 10 prescribes duration of the operation of the orders as passed under section 4. He tried to stress before us that clauses (a) and (b) of section 10 are independent and deals with two different contingencies. They are not to be read conjunctively but in isolation. The scheme under clauses (a) and (b) are altogether different and they deal with two different contingencies unconnected with each other.