The prosecution has failed to place on record any reliable and cogent material which would establish the indictment of the appellant in the present case.

JUDGMENT

Milind N. Jadhav, J. - By the present appeal, the appellant - Maruti Navnath Sonawane has prayed for the following relief:

"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to discharge the appellant from the alleged entire proceedings arisen in final report arising out of FIR vide CR. No.70 of 2019 dated 07.04.2019 for alleged offence punishable u/s. 395, 397, 412, 341, 201 r/w 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code, section 3(i)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime act, 1999 act and u/s 37 (1) (a) r/w 135 of the Maharashtra Police act registered at the instance of Kalachowki Police Station."

2. a First Information Report ('FIR') came to be registered against the appellant and other co-accused in Kalachowki Police Station vide C.R. No. 70 of 2019 dated 07.04.2019 for offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 412, 341, 201 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') read with Section 37(1)(a) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police act, 1951. appellant is arraigned as accused No.3 in the report.

3. On 11.05.2019, Respondent applied for approval to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai under the provisions of Section 23(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime act, 1999 ('MCOC act') for invoking the provisions of the said act against the appellant and other accused in C.R. No. 70 of 2019.

4. On 06.07.2019, the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai accepted the approval and granted sanction thereby invoking the provisions of Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC act in C.R. No.70 of 2019 against the appellant and other co-accused.

5. On 08.07.2019, charge-sheet in C.R. No.70 of 2019 was filed in the court of the Special Judge for MCOCa at Bombay ('Trial Court').

6. appellant filed application under Exhibit No.93 in the Trial court seeking discharge from the offences for which charge-sheet was filed against him.

7. By order dated 18.01.2022, the Trial court rejected the appellant's application for seeking discharge on the ground that there was voluminous material available against the appellant for proceeding against him for the charges levelled against him and held that the Court did not find any merit in his submission that the provisions of the MCOC act are not attracted. This order dated 18.01.2022 is impugned and challenged in the present Criminal appeal.

8. Before we advert to the submissions made by the respective counsels, it will be apposite to refer to such facts which are relevant for the purpose of the present appeal.

8.1. It is the prosecution case that appellant is involved in the crime registered as C.R. No.70 of 2019 dated 07.04.2019.

8.2. Complainant (informant) in C.R.No. 70 of 2019 is a designer and supplier of gold ornaments and designs to his customers. He visits various jewellers' shops in and around Mumbai to show and exhibit sample gold ornaments and designs and thereafter receive orders for manufacturing them. On the occasion of Gudi Padwa i.e. 06.04.2019, complainant decided to visit various jewellers' shops on M.G.Road in Panvel to show his designs and sample gold ornaments. Hence on the previous night i.e. 05.04.2019 at about 20:30 hours, the complainant after closing his shop carried alongwith him 1800 gm. of sample gold ornaments comprising of chains, bangles, rings, earrings etc. in a black leather bag and reached his residence at around 21:00 hours at Chinchpokli.

8.3. On the morning of 06.04.2019, complainant left his house with the gold ornaments, reached Chinckpokli railway station and boarded a local train to Kurla railway station. He got down at Kurla railway station and boarded another train to Panvel. Throughout the day, he visited various jewellers' shop on M.G. Road in Panvel and showed them sample ornaments and after taking orders for manufacturing the ornaments returned back to Chinchpokli by the same route. The complainant reached Chinchpokli railway station at about 21