The individual role of each accused need not be stated in the sanction order under MCOCA, and the available material on record was found to prima facie indicate a link between the petitioner and the crime, requiring the matter to go to trial to determine the alleged defect in the sanction order.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has sought quashing of provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) being applied to C.R. No. 189 of 2018, wherein the Petitioner has been arraigned as accused along with other persons for offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as Bombay Prohibition Act. The Petitioner claims that the sanction order issued under the MCOCA deserves to be quashed qua the Petitioner.

2. The aforesaid crime was registered as per FIR registered at the Saswad Police Station, District Pune against unknown persons for offences under Sections 395, 341, 412 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as also provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act. Upon investigation, it was found that four persons including the Petitioner were involved in the said crime. A proposal was moved for seeking sanction for applying the provisions of MCOCA against the accused persons in the aforesaid crime. By order dated 27.11.2018, the Additional Director General of Police (L & O), Maharashtra i.e. Respondent No.3 herein passed an order granting sanction for applying MCOCA against the accused persons including the Petitioner who was at that stage absconding accused.

3. Later the Petitioner was arrested on 03.12.2018 and he was sent to judicial custody. The incident leading to registration of FIR occurred on 22.05.2018 when the Complainant, who was working as a driver with the transport company, driving a truck containing bottles of whiskey, was forced to stop the truck due to obstruction by four persons riding motorcycles. The said persons assaulted the Complainant, tied his mouth and forcibly took away the truck thereby committing the said offence. The articles stolen in the process included bottles of whiskey and mobile phones worth Rs.55,33,014/-. Pursuant to registration of FIR, investigation was undertaken.

4. Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that in the present case there was no material to connect the Petitioner with the aforesaid incident and that he had been falsely roped in. It was further submitted that MCOCA could not have been applied in the present case, at least in so far as the Petitioner was concerned and that the sanction order dated 27.11.2018 passed by Respondent No.3 deserves to be quashed. It was submitted that in the said order individual role of the Petitioner was not specified and there was nothing to show that material was available with Respondent No.3 to come to a conclusion that the Petitioner was part of continuing unlawful activity or that he could be set to be part of a gang. There was no material to connect the Petitioner with the co-accused persons and that therefore the sanction order deserved to be quashed and the provisions of MCOCA could not be applied as against the Petitioner.

5. On the other hand Mr. Yagnik, learned APP submitted that the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner were more in the nature of his defence and same could be raised at the time of trial. It was submitted that the alleged defects in the sanction order could be demonstrated at the stage of trial and that the sanction order could not be set aside in a casual manner. The material available on record was sufficient for Respondent No.3 to have issued the sanction order to apply provisions of MCOCA to the aforesaid crime and the accused therein including the Petitioner. The learned APP placed reliance upon Judgments of this Court in the case of (1) Anil Sadashiv Nanduskar Vs. State of Maharashtra,2008 12 LJSOFT 156, (2) Govind Sakharam Ubhe Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) AllMR(Cri) 1903 and (3) Farman Imran Shah @ Karu Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) AllMR(Cri) 1571.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for rival parties and perused the material on record. Before considering the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner, it would be appropriate to refer to the position of law that emerges from the aforesaid Judgments on which learne