This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") raises the following questions:(i) Whether it is necessary that a separate information under section 23(1)(a) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ("for short," MCOCA"), should be recorded after the approval is accorded under this section even in cases where the crime had already been registered after recording the FIR under section 154 of the Code for the offences under the Indian Penal Code?

(ii) Whether a Police Officer, other than the officer mentioned in section 23(l)(a) of MCOCA. has power to club two or more similar offences together, having been committed by the very same organised crime syndicate before the sanction under section 23(2) is accorded, without seeking a fresh approval in respect thereof and the Police Officer mentioned in sub-section 23(1)(b)can proceed to investigate them as a single offence?

(iii) Whether the sanction accorded under section 23(2) of MCOCA would be rendered invalid on the ground that the prior approval under section 23(\)(a)was not obtained for recording an information about an offence registered earlier bearing DCB, cm No.87/2005, which is clubbed with the offence bearing DCB, cm No.86/2005 for which the approval had been granted?

2. The writ petition raising the aforesaid questions is filed by the sole petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings against him in MCOC Special Case No.25/2005 on the file of the Special Court-II for Greater Bombay at Sewree.

3. The background facts. sans unnecessary details, are as follows. An offence vide C.R. No.128/2005 was registered at Dr. D.B. Marg Police Station under section 387 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code on the allegations that during the period between 31/5/2005 and 6/7/2005 the co-accused Vikki Malhotra and Farid Ahmed claiming to be working for Chhota Rajan were threatening the informant and trying to extort money to the tune of Rs.One Crore. On the very same day, another FIR vide C.R. No. 195/2005 was registered at L.T. Marg Police Station under secti( ., 387 read with 34 of IPC making the simila. allegations by another informant, who was: so threatened by the very same accused for ex rtion money of Rs.Fifty lacs. The investigal , 10 of both these offences was transferred to DCB, CID and they were registered afresh as C.R. Nos.86/2005 and 87/2005. The petitioner also came to be arrested in connection with these offences.

4. A proposal was submitted by a Senior Inspector of Police DCB, cm, CIU, Mumbai, to the Joint Commissioner of Police Crime), Crime Branch, cm, Mumbai, respondent No.2 in the petition, for seeking the prior approval under section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA for recording an information about the offence registered earlier bearing DCB, cm No.86/ 2005. Respondent No.2, on 25.7.2005, granted the approval and directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, B-I/Special. DCB, cm, Mumbai, respondent No.1 herein, to investigate into the offence bearing C.R. No.8612005. After fl the investigation was completed a proposal for sanction dated 11.10.2005 along with a report a of the Joint Commissioner of Police dated 0 15.10.2005 and the papers of investigation in tl DCB, cm, C.R. Nos.8612005 and 8712005 were presented to the Commissioner of Police, a Brihan mumbai, respondent No.3 in the petition, v for sanction as required under section 23(2) of t' MCOCA. On 18.10.2005, respondent No.3 s accorded the sanction to prosecute the petitioner r and the co-accused. The petitioner had filed a r bail application before the Special Court-II, which came to be rejected vide order dated 14.11.2006. It is against this backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition seeking to quash the Special Case No.25/2005. The State has opposed the prayer by filing reply affidavit dated 29.3.2007.

5. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. Wit