LAWS(BOM)-2009-2-60

MOIN VAIRUDDIN QURESHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On February 20, 2009
Moin Vairuddin Qureshi Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 6th december, 2006, in Special Case No. 8/2005, passed by the Special Court constituted under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime act, 1999 (MCOC Act) at Pune, whereby the application of the appellant seeking discharge came to be rejected.

(2.) THE appellant (alongwith others)is an accused in the said Special Case No. 8/ 2005. According to the appellant, he was also shown as accused in another case under mcoc Act being Special Case No. 1/1999. By judgment and order dated 6th October, 2002 in the said Special Case No. 1/1999, the appellant alongwith the other accused persons, were held guilty for the offence punishable under section 3 (i) (ii) of MCOC Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs each and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. The appellant and said other accused persons were also convicted of the offence punishable under section 3 r/w. section 25 of the Arms Act and section 33 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the appellant was detained and was undergoing his sentence in connection with the said case. The appellant challenged the above order of conviction in the above special Case No. 1/1999, by preferring a criminal Appeal being Criminal Appeal no. 1271/2002 before this Court, which is admitted and is pending hearing and final disposal. After rejection of an earlier bail application, the appellant was ultimately granted bail on 29th July, 2003 by this Court in the said Criminal Appeal.

(3.) THE learned Counsel invited our attention to the preamble, Section 23 and the definitions of "organised crime", "continuing unlawful activity", "organized crime syndicate" under the MCOC Act and submitted that looking to the stringent provisions of the MCOC Act, sufficient safeguards have been provided, which are not followed in the present case. The learned counsel assailed the sanction order also on the ground that there was no objective and subjective satisfaction on the part of the sanctioning authority to grant sanction on the basis of material which was placed before him, as only list of the FIRs. was placed before him and not the relevant contents of the FIRs. and investigation papers. The learned Counsel also assailed the impugned order on the ground that the learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate the case of the appellant in its proper perspective, and therefore, considering all the aspects of the matter, the impugned order is required to be set aside and the appellant be discharged. The learned Counsel has relied upon the following judgments : -