LexVINOD G. ASRANI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~-+
VINOD G. ASRANI
A
v.
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA
FEBRUARY 21, 2007
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.]
B
-..
~
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999:
ss.23(1) and (2)-Prosecution-Non inclusion of name of accused in c
the approval granted under s.23(J){a)-Ejfect-Held, is of no consequence
since during investigation his complicity was established and thereafter
sanction was obtained to prosecute him along with the others under s.23(2}-
Allegation against him were sufficient to charge sheet him under the provisions
of the Act alongwith other accused as being part of an organised crime
syndicate-Code of Criminal Procedure, I 97 3-s. I 54.
D
By way of writ petitions before the High Court, petitioner and three
others had challenged their prosecution under the Maharashtra Control of
Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) and sought quashing of the FIR and
the grant of approval under s.23(l)(a) and sanction under s.23(2) of the Act.
High Court confined itself only to the question as to whether the prosecution E
had complied with the provisions ofss. 23 (1) and (2) of the Act.
In Special Leave Petition to this Court, petitioner contended that no
approval had been obtained to commence the investigation against the
~
petitioner under s.23 (1) (a) of the Act and consequently the Investigating
Officer did not have the authority to commence investigation into the offences F
alleged to have been committed by the petitioner; and that if the very initiation
of the investigation stood vitiated by the failure to obtain approval under s.23
(1) (a), the subsequent sanction granted under s.23 (2) also stood vitiated and
the proceedings before the Special Court on the basis thereof were liable to
be quashed.
G
-:'
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The High Court did not commit any error in dismissing the
1023
H
1024
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 2 S.C.R.
A petitioner's writ application. [Para 8) [1028-B]
1.2. Non-inclusion of the petitioner's name in the approval under
s.23(1)(a) ofMCOCA was not fatal to the investigation as far as the petitioner
is concerned. On the other hand, his name was included in the sanction
granted under s.23(2) after the stage of investigation into the complaint where
B his complicity was established. The offences alleged to have been committed
by the petitioner has a direct bearing and/or link with the activities of the
other accused as part of the Chhota Rajan gang which was an organized crime
syndicate. [Para 8) [1028-C)
2. The scheme of the Cr.P.C. makes it clear that once the information
C of the commission of an offence is received under s.154 Cr.P.C., the
investigating authorities take up the investigation and file charge sheet against
whoever, is found during the investigation to have been involved in the
commission of such offence. There is no hard and fast rule that the First
Information Report must always contain the names of all persons who were
D involved in the commission of an offence. Very often the names of the culprits
are not even mentioned in the F.I.R. and they surface only at the stage of the
investigation. The scheme under s.23 of MCOCA is similar and s.23 (l)(a)
provides a safeguard that no investigation into an offence under MCOCA should
be commenced without the approval of the concerned authorities. Once such
approval is obtained, an investigation is commenced. Those who are
E subsequently found to be involved in the commission of the organized crime
can be proceeded against once sanction is obtained against them under s. 23
(2) of MCOCA. [Para 9) (1028-E-G)
F
Kari Choudhary v. Mst. Sita Devi & Ors., [2002) 1 SCC 714, relied on.
3. By way of an interim order dated 15th December, 2006, the petitioner
had been granted interim bail which was extended from time to time. In view
of this judgment, the petitioner's bail stands cancelled and he is directed to
surrender forthwith before the Special Court. [Para 12] [1029-B]
G
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Crl)
No.6312 of2006.
H
From the final Judgment and Order dated 10.11.2006 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in CRL WP No. 1043/2006.
+-
VINODG.ASRANlv. STATEOFMAHARASIITRA [ALTAMASKABIR, l]
1025
Sushi! Kumar,' Kaushik Jayant, Vinay Arora, Aditya Kumar, Anmol A
~·~
Thakral and Sanjay Jain for the Appellant.
Altaf Ahmed, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure,, Sushil Karanjkar and Gautam
Godara for theExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.