IMPORTANT POINT
There is nothing to indicate that the power of extension can be exercised only once. Special court can extend remand period time to time.

Judgment :

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.

Leave granted.

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court holding that the order dated 4.9.2006 passed by learned Special Judge in bail application No. 32 of 2006 filed in remand application No. 17 of 2006 suffers from no infirmity.

3. Criminal Appeal No. 996 of 2006 was filed under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (in short the Act).

4. The bail application was preferred by the accused Nos. 5 to 8 challenging the order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Special Court thereby granting second extension of 15 days to complete the investigation and to file the charge-sheet. The bail application came to be rejected. It had been prayed in the appeal that the appellants be released on bail in LAC No. 3 of 2006 on default of the prosecution in completing the investigation within the extended period granted upto 21.8.2006. Whereas in Criminal Appeal No. 736 of 2006 filed by the original accused nos. 5 to 8 under section 12 of the Act, the order of extension passed by the Special Court on 7.8.2001 in MA No. 260 of 2006 filed in Remand Application No. 52 of 2006 was prayed to be quashed and set aside, with the prayer that the appellants be released on suitable bail on default of the prosecution in filing the charge-sheet within the specified period of 90 days. As per the prosecution Criminal Appeal 736 of 2006 would not survive after disposal of the bail application No. 32 of 2006 by the Special Court.

5. The sequence of events in the instant appeals is as under:

(a) The appellants were arrested on 13.5.2006 on the charges punishable under the MCOC Act, 1999.

(b) The period of initial 90 days to complete the investigation expired on 6.8.2006.

(c) The first application by the prosecutor for extension of time was filed on 3.8.2006.

(d) The first order, granting extension was passed on 7.8.2006 and the extension of 15 days so granted was to expire on 21.8.2006.

(e) The second application for extension was preferred by the prosecutor on 21.8.2006 seeking further extension and the Special Court granted extension upto 4.9.2006.

(f) The charge sheet has been filed on 4.9.2006.

(g) Criminal Appeal No. 996 of 2006 has been presented on 7.10.2006 before the High court i.e. after the charge sheet was filed.

6. It was submitted that the Special Court erred in law in rejecting the bail application by the order dated 4.9.2006 and while doing so it misinterpreted the provisions of section 21(2)(b) of the Act. In short, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants and though the period for completing the investigation and filing the charge sheet is extended by another 90 days and the investigation is required to be completed in a maximum period of 180 days, there is no provision for granting extension after completion of 90 days in piecemeal in as much as the power of granting extension beyond 90 days can be exercised by the Special Court only once and while doing so, the Special Court on an application moved by the prosecutor can either refuse to grant extension or grant extension for any number of days upto 90 days, but if the extension application for the first occasion is considered and extension is granted for any period less than 90 days, the second application for granting extension moved by the prosecutor cannot be entertained and the Special Court has no such powers to consider such second application or any number of applications filed by the prosecutor for extension upto a total period of 180 days to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet.

7. Stand of the State before the High Court was that the stand of the appellants about the scheme of Section 21(2)(b) is misconceived. The High Court accepted that the order passed by learned Single Judge did not suffer from any infirmity.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the scope and ambit of Section 21 (2)(b) of the Act has not been kept in view.