LexJAMIRUDDIN ANSARI versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... [2009] 7 S.C.R. 759 JAMIRUDDIN ANSARI v CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR. Criminal Appeal No. 958 of 2009 MAY 6, 2009 (ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.) Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999: .Sections 9(1), 23(1), 25 - Special Court constituted A B ·under the Act - Whether could order investigation save and c except in accordance with Section 23(1) and interplay, if any, qetween Sections 9(1) and Section 23- Held: Special Judge cannot take cognizance of any offence under the Act unless sanction has been previously given by the Police Officer - Provisions of Section 9(1) will have to be read in harmony with 0 the provisions of Section 23(2) as far as private complaints are concerned - Hence the majority view of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court holding otherwise is negated - Its conclusions and directions are also set aside - Minority view approved since it correctly interprets the interplay between E Sections 9, 23 and 25 of the Act- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3). In thes~ appeals against the judgment of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, the question that arose for consideration was as to whether an investigation F could be ordered by the Special Court constituted under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), save and except in accordance with Section 23(1) of MCOCA, and interplay, if any, between Section 9(1) and Section 23 of MCOCA. G ~ ~ Disposing of.the appeals, the Court- HELD: 1. Section 9 of MCOCA cannot be read or invoked independent of Section 23. Section 9(1) 759 H 760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R. A contemplates filing of complaints both by the investigating authorities and also by private parties and the Special Judge is, therefore, entitled to take cognizance of offences under MCOCA even on a private complaint, but after due compliance with Section 23(2) thereof. In view of the B stringent provisions of MCOCA, the Legislature included certain safeguards for invoking the provisions thereof. The same is manifest from the provisions of Section 23 as a whole. [Para 35] [779-F-H; 780-A] State of Orissa Vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew (2004) 8 SCC C 40; K. Kalimuthu Vs. State by DSP (2005) 4 SCC 512; State . of Himachal Pradesh Vs. M.P Gupta (2004) 2 SCC 349; Sankaran Moitra Vs. Sadhna Oas and another (2006) 4 SC 584; N.K. Ogle Vs. Sanwaldas (1999) 3 SCC 284; Harpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2007) 13 SCALE 728; Rambhai D Nathabhai Gadhvi and others Vs. State of Gujarat (1997) 4 SCC 744; Nelson Matis Vs. Union of India & Anr (1992) 4 SCC 711; Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253; UC Vs. Escorts Ltd. & Ors. ( 1986) 1 SCC 264; Mansukhlal Vs. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622; State of Maharashtra E & Ors. Vs. La/it Somdatta Nagpal & Anr (2007) 4 SCC 171; A.R. Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak & Anr (1984) 2 SCC 500 and Moti Lal Vs. CBI & Anr (2002) 4 SCC 713 - referred to. · 2. The expression used in Section 9(1) rndicates that the Special Court may take cognizance of any offence F without the accused being committed to it for trial, either on receiving a complaint of facts or upon a police report of su&h facts, which clearly indicates that the Special Court is also empowered to take cognizance of an offence under MCOCA even on a private complaint. The said l..:i power vested in the Special Judge is, however, controlled by the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act, which provides that no Special Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act without the previous sanction of a Police Officer not below the rank of Additional Director . H Gener~I of Police. [Para 36] [780-E-G] · JAMIRUDDIN ANSARI V. 761 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR ._, ~ 3. The wording of Sub-Section (2) of Section 23 A leaves no room for doubt that the Special Judge cannot take cognizance of any offence under MCOCA unless sanction has been previously given by the police officer. -< In such a situation, even as far as a private complaint is concerned, sanction has to be obtained from the Police B Officer not below the rcmk of Additional Director General " of Police, before the Special Judge can take cognizance ~· of such complaint. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 9(1) will have to be read in harmony with the provisions of Section 23(2) as far as private complaints are c concerned, and this Court has no hesitation in negating the majority v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.