The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of prior approval for invocation of provisions under the MCOC act, the specific role of the offender, and the nexus with the crime syndicate.

JUDGMENT

V. M. Deshpande, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Heard Shri Firdos Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, learned additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. Though very attractive arguments were made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, closure scrutiny of the entire case of the prosecution, which is presented before this Court in reply, we are of the view that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner needs to be rejected.

4. This case has a genesis of how parents are desperate to see that their progeny/child/ward is admitted in professional course like medicines and for that there can be allurement by the sharks which are having a free swing in the society and they always look for their pray and such parents are the easiest one.

5. an offence was registered with Police Station, ajni, Nagpur by one Dr. Shilpa Suresh Dhekle, a Medical Practitioner at Pune. She was very much interested to see that her daughter is admitted in medical course. Since, the challenge in this writ petition is only in respect of the order passed by respondent no.1 Director General Of Police, Nagpur, dated 25.01.2022 granting sanction under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime (MCOC) act, 1999, we will not comment on the merits and demerits of the first information report since it will cause prejudice not only to the accused persons, but also to the prosecution.

6. Suffice to say, the first informant and her husband were allured by the persons named in the first information report to part with Rs.41,00,000/- (Rupees Forty one lakhs only) with an assurance that her daughter will get admission in Government Medical College. The present petitioner is the assistant Professor at a Government Medical College. The first information report describes him as 'Sakhare Mama'. Incidentally the surname of the present petitioner is Sakhare. after registration of the crime, it appears that the petitioner was apprehending his arrest and therefore, he approached before the learned Judge of the trial Court by moving an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, he was unsuccessful. Therefore, he approached to this Court by filing an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It is registered as Criminal application (aBa) No. 761/2021 and the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court (Coram : Vinay Joshi, J.) on 02.11.2021 has protected the petitioner from his arrest. It is informed to the Court that as on today, aBa No. 761/2021 is awaiting its final verdict from the Court and the interim protection is in operation in favour of the petitioner.

7. In the meanwhile, a proposal was submitted by the authority from the Economic Offences Wing to the Competent authority under the MCOC act for seeking accord of sanction to invoke the provisions of the MCOC act. The respondent no.1 authority by the impugned order has granted the sanction. The same is challenged before this Court.

8. The submission of the petitioner before this Court is that he is not the accused in any of the offences which are registered against the syndicate though the petitioner is shown as one of the members of the said syndicate. He submits that as on today two charge-sheets against the present petitioner are not filed and therefore, the sanction granted by the authority needs to be set aside.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention to the verdict given by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Mahipal Singh .vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2014) 11 SCC 282 and submitted that the case of the petitioner is completely covered by the said authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble apex Court. Incidentally he has also relied upon the decisions of this Court, of which the copies are annexed along with the petition itself.

9. Per