SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Bom) 749

High Court of Judicature at Bombay
P.V. HARDAS & A.S. GADKARI, JJ.
Farman Imran Shah @ Karu
Versus
State of Maharashtra
Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2014
Decided on: 25-03-2014

Advocate Appeared
For the Appellant:J. Shekhar, Harsh Hiroo, Gurshahani i/b J. Shekhar & Co., Advocates.
For the Respondent: S.D. Shinde, Addl. P.P.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 154 - FIR. - Non-mentioning of name of one of accused persons at time of lodging FIR, not vitiates FIR. - It cannot be expected from a witness who was hovering under the impact/shock of a ghastly incident, to give each and every minute details when he or she is suffering from the said trauma. It is only after the witness comes out of the trauma which he/she has suffered, it is possible for him/her to recapitulate the details of the incident and to give a detailed account of the incident. It is the settled position of law that FIR is not an encyclopedia of all the facts pertaining to a crime and therefore non-appearance of the name of one of the accused persons at the time of lodging of FIR does not vitiate the same, neither an inference can be drawn out of the said omission that the said accused person had not participated at all in the crime. The appearance of the name in the supplementary statement is an after thought at the instance of the complainant.

       Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 - Section 23 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 227 - Sanction for prosecution under Act. - Since competent authority has recorded its subjective satisfaction while according sanction hence question of validity of sanction cannot be decided without giving opportunity to prosecution to lead evidence is that respect. - The prior approval granted by the competent authority under Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act which is at page 60 of the compilation, so also the order according sanction under Section 23(2) of the MCOC Act which is at page No. 26 of the compilation. The competent authority has recorded its subjective satisfaction while granting prior approval and according sanction in the present matter. The prosecution has to be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence with regard to the subjective satisfaction recorded by the competent authority by leading evidence at the time of trial. As has been held in the case of Anil Nanduskar (supra), undoubtedly, an accused desiring to raise objection regarding the defects in such approval or sanction, or grant, the accused can raise such objection, however, for conclusive decision on the said point the accused has to wait till the trial is complete and on that ground he cannot insist for discharge unless the objection relates to inherent lack of jurisdiction of the concerned authority to grant approval or sanction and such an issue can be decided only on the undisputed facts on record. As has been held by us in the foregoing paragraphs, the concerned authorities have recorded their subjective satisfaction while initially granting prior approval and subsequently according sanction under Section 23 of the MCOC Act in the present case and therefore the contention of the Appellant is incorrect in that behalf.

       Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 302, 341, 427 and 149 - MCOC Act, 1999, Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) - Cr PC, 1973, Section 228 - Framing of charge. - Since evidence of witnesses in detail stating about active role played by accused while committing alleged offences hence prima facie case made out against accused to frame charge for alleged offences. - It is very clear that the appellant in commission of the present crime has played a vital role i.e. to say that he had taken active part in pulling out the deceased from the car and thereafter inflicting blows with sickle on him. Thus, there is a strong prima facie case against the appellant to frame a charge as contemplated under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under Sections 302, 341, 427, 120-B, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4(25) of the Indian Arms Act and under Section 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the MCOC Act.

Judgment

A.S. Gadkari, J.

This Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 ('MCOC Act' for brevity) thereby challenging the order passed by the Learned Special Judge, Pune under the MCOC Act, below Exhibit 4 in MCOCA Special Case No.7 of 2012, thereby rejecting his application preferred under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge. The Appellant questions the correctness of the said order dated 4 March 2013 passed below Exhibit 4 in Special case No.7 of 2012. The Appellant has challenged the said order mainly on two grounds i.e. (i) that there is no material at all on record for framing a charge against him and (ii) there is a total non application of mind of the competent authorities while granting prior approval as contemplated under Section 23(1)(a) and sanction as contemplated under Section 23(2) of the MCOC Act.

2. It appears from the record that the complainant Smt. Parvin Anwar Shaikh has lodged a First Information Report at Kondhwa Police Station on 14 March 2012 stating that on 13 March 2012 at about 10.30 p.m. when she was proceeding with her husband in a Santro car, accused Matin Rafique Shaikh and Nadir Munir Sayyed obstructed their way on a motorcycle on which the said accused persons were riding and at that time other accused persons immediately came thereon and encircled their car. One of the accused persons hurled a stone on the glass at the driver's side, the other persons also damaged the car and the accused persons opened the door of the car, pulled out her husband and severely assaulted him. The complainant has further stated that because of the said incident, she was frightened and started screaming. That when she was shouting for the help, some of her relatives and her son came there and they took the husband of the complainant i.e. Anwar Shaikh to Hospital wherein the said Anwar Shaikh succumbed to the injuries while undergoing medical treatment. It further appears from the record that initially an offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 341 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(25) of the Indian Arms Act was registered bearing CR. No.40 of 2012 dated 14 February 2012. It also appears from the record that during the course of investigation it was revealed that the said crime was committed by the Organized Crime Syndicate of Mohasin @ Guddu Anwar Shaikh and his associates. It further appears from the record that on 22 May 2012 Deputy Inspector General of Police and Additional Commissioner of Police, Southern region, Pune city granted prior approval on the basis of the report submitted by the Senior Police Inspector, Kondhwa Police Station for invoking the provisions of the MCOC Act to be applied to CR No.40 of 2012 originally registered at Kondhwa Police Station and the investigation of the said crime after invoking the provisions of the MCOC Act, was handed over to Mr.V.T. Pawar, Assistant Police Commissioner, Wanvadi Division. That after completion of the investigation, the competent authority. i.e. the Additional Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police, Pune city accorded sanction as contemplated under Section 23(2) of the MCOC Act by his order dated 27 August 2012. That the Appellant is arraigned as an accused No.12 in the said sanction order dated 27 August 2012 and Mohasin @ Guddu Anwar Shaikh has been named as the head of the crime syndicate as accused No.1. The said sanction has been accorded against 13 persons and two absconding accused persons. It further appears from the documents annexed to the present Appeal that a chargesheet has been filed on 3 September 2012 before the Special Court under the MCOC Act under Sections 302, 341, 427, 120(b), 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 4(25) of the Indian Arms Act and under Section 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the MCOC Act.

3. The present Appellant who has been arraigned as accused No





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top