SURJITSINGH BHAGATSINGH GAMBHIR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 12/02/2017, two candidates who were contesting election of Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti being the nominated candidates of a political party arranged a dinner party for their supporters and voters and what transpired in the said party has resulted into registration of FIR No.36 of 2017 at the instance of Baban R. Avhad. It is alleged that in the said party, liquor was served along with dinner and two brothers of the complainant who attended the party started feeling uneasiness in the night of 12/02/2017 and since their condition deteriorated, they were hospitalized in a private hospital at Ahmednagar. They came to be shifted to the City Civil Hospital and while undergoing the treatment, they breathed their last. As an outcome of the consumption of liquor, 9 people died and 13 people took seriously ill and were required to be offered treatments. The complainant, whose brothers met with the untimely death lodged a complaint with MIDC Police Station and an offence punishable under Section 304, 328 read with Section 34 of the IPC came to be registered. Relevant sections vide Sections 65A, 65B, 65C, 65D, 65E, 68A and 68B and Section 18(1) and (2) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 were also added to the crime and the accused came to be arrested.

(2.) While investigating the crime, a proposal was made to invoke provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 ("MCOCA") on 05/02/2017.

(3.) The next step taken was the sanction under Sub-Section (2) of Section 23 of the MCOCA for the prosecution of the aforesaid offences granted by the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Pune, by his Order dated 10/08/2017 in which the Applicant was assigned the role of a Member of the Syndicate and was covered under the MCOCA. Pursuant to this, a Charge Sheet came to be filed on 11/08/2017 and the contention of the Petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in the said crime and while granting the approval/sanction by the Respondents, there was complete absence of application of mind and according to the Petitioner, there is no nexus established between the crime registered and the Petitioner nor any incriminating evidence or proof of commission of any illegal act either individually or collectively has been attributed to the Petitioner and the Petitioner questions the very act of the Respondents in arraigning him as a member of the Organized Crime Syndicate and the filing of the Charge Sheet against him under the relevant provisions.