Sarang V. Kotwal, J.

This is an Appeal preferred by the Appellant challenging the order dated 05/01/2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge under MCOC/TADA/POTA/NIA/SUSCA Act, Greater Mumbai in Discharge Application Exh.301 in MCOC Special Case No.12 of 2011. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has rejected the application for discharge preferred by the Appellant.

2. The Appellant is accused no.3. The investigating agency has filed chargesheet against him for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 325, 324, 379, 109 and 120B of the IPC, Sections 5 and 9 of the Explosive Substances Act, Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Properties Act, Sections 13, 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 amended in 2008 (for short, 'UAPA') and Sections 3(1)(i) (ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, 'MCOC Act').

3. The case arises out of the investigation into the offences registered vide C.R. Nos. 28/2011, 29/2011 and 30/2011 with ATS Police Station, Kalachowki, Mumbai. These offences were registered in respect of three bombblasts which occurred on 13/07/2011 in Zaveri Bazar, Opera House and Dadar. Initially, the offences were registered at Dr. D.B. Marg Police Station, L.T. Marg Police Station and Shivaji Park Police Station. Initial investigation was carried out by the officers of these police stations and on 18/07/2011 all these 3 cases were taken over by the Anti-Terrorism Squad, Mumbai. In these 3 bombblasts, in all 27 persons were killed and 127 persons sustained injuries. The bombs were placed in vehicles near the vicinity of crowded localities causing such large scale destruction.

4. During investigation, it was revealed that Rs.10 Lakhs were transferred from abroad through Hawala transactions. The amount of Rs.10 Lakhs was delivered through Hawala Operator from Dubai on the instructions of one Haroon Rashid Abdul Hameed Naik of 'Indian Mujahidin'. It is the case of the prosecution that the present Appellant was a Hawala Operator based in Delhi and on his instructions, his servant handed over the amount to one Shivanand. The said Shivanand was actually one of the main accused Yasin Bhatkal and he had used that name to conceal his identity. At the conclusion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in respect of a large scale conspiracy and different offences committed in the process.

5. The Applicant is the accused no.3 in MCOC Special Case No.11 of 2012 pending before the learned Special Judge. He preferred an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. vide discharge application at Exh.301 in the said case. As mentioned earlier, the said application was rejected and therefore, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal.

6. We have heard Mr. A.P. Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Ajay Patil, learned APP for State of Maharashtra. With their assistance, we have perused the relevant documents annexed to the appeal memo as well as those produced by the Respondent State.

7. Mr. Mundargi vehemently submitted that there is no sufficient material in the entire chargesheet enabling the Court to frame charges against the Appellant. He submitted that the allegations and the charges cannot travel beyond the material produced in the chargesheet. He submitted that the material, even at this stage, was so inadequate against the Appellant that framing of any charge against the Appellant was not possible and he was entitled to be discharged from the case.

8. Mr. Mundargi submitted that even as per the prosecution case, the money was to come through Hawala transactions initially through a Hawala Operator based in Mumbai. Only on his inability to complete the transactions; according to the prosecution case, the present Appellant was contacted by the accused. Mr. Mundargi submitted that, at the highest, the material shows that the Appellant paid Rs.10 L