JUDGMENT :

A.S. GADKARI, J.

1. By the present Appeal under Section 21(1) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, Appellant, Original Accused No. 9, has impugned Order dated 27th December 2017 passed below Exh.4247 and Exh.4689 in NIA Special Case No. 01 of 2016, by the learned Special Judge (Under MCOC and NIA Act), Greater Mumbai, rejecting his application under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code for discharge from the said crime.

2. Exhibit-4247 was filed by the Appellant under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 11 of MCOC Act for discharge under the provisions of MCOC Act and UAPA Act.

Exhibit-4698 was filed by the Appellant under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 197 of Cr.P.C. for discharge under Section 302/307 of I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Explosives Act.

The Applications preferred by the Appellant have been partially allowed by the Trial Court by its impugned Order. Appellant has been discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) of MCOC Act and from the offences punishable under Sections 17, 20 and 23 of UAP Act as well as for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 5 and 25 of Arms Act. The Trial Court has directed that, Charge be framed against the Appellant and accused Nos. 1, 4 to 6, 10 and 11 for the offences as more specifically mentioned in Para No. 7 of the operative part of the impugned Order.

3. Heard Dr. Neela Gokhale, learned counsel for Appellant, Mr. Sandesh Patil, learned Special P.P. for Respondent No. 1-NIA, Mrs. S.D. Shinde, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No. 2-State and Mr. Shahid Nadeem, learned Advocate for Intervenor. Perused Synopsis/List of Dates submitted by the learned counsel for Appellant and the Written Submissions submitted by the learned Advocate for Intervenor. Perused entire record produced before us.

4. At the outset, Dr. Neela Gokhale, learned counsel for Appellant submitted that, the Appellant is challenging the impugned Order only on the ground of requirement of ‘Sanction’ as contemplated under Section 197(2) of Cr.P.C. to prosecute him, as on the date of commission of alleged offence, he was a public servant and was performing his lawful duty in that behalf and to consider the case of the Appellant only on the point of ‘Sanction’ as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. She therefore submitted that, the issue of ‘Sanction’ as contemplated under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. be decided in the present appeal.

5. It is to be noted here that, by an Order dated 21st August 2017, the Appellant was granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By subsequent Order dated 20th April 2018 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 611-613 of 2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered that, the observations made by it in the Order deciding the bail application shall not be totally brushed aside, but shall be considered during framing of charge and the Trial Court and the High Court shall decide the same on its own merits without being influenced by the observations in respect of sanctions in Para No. 19 of the Order dated 21st August 2017.

6. We have accordingly heard learned counsel for the Appellant at length on the point whether the ‘Sanction’ under Section 197(2) of Cr.P.C. is necessary or not to prosecute the Appellant.

7. As per the Second Supplementary Report submitted by the Respondent No. 1-NIA before the Trial Court, it is the case of the prosecution that:

(i) On 29th September 2008, at about 21.35 hours, a bomb explosion occurred opposite Shakeel Goods Transport Company, between Anjuman Chowk and Bhiku Chowk at Malegaon. The blast took place by an improvised explosive device fitted in a LML Freedom motorcycle bearing registration number MH-15/P-4572. In the said bomb explosion, six persons were killed and about 101 persons received serious to grievous injuries. There was also loss of public property in the vicinity. Since, it was the month of ‘Holy Ramzan’ and on 30th September 2008 holy festival of ‘Navratrotsav’