The Court emphasized the principles of framing charges under Sec. 227 of Cr.P.C. and the evidentiary value of confessional statements under Sec. 18 of MCOC Act.

JUDGMENT

A.S.GADKARI,J. - Present Appeal under Sec. 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short, "the MCOC Act") is preferred by the Appellant (Original Accused No.5) impugning the Order dtd. 23/8/2018, below Exh-11 in MCOCA Case No.3 of 2018, rejecting his Application for discharge under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "Cr.P.C.") from the said case.

The said MCOCA Case No.3 of 2018 is culmination of investigation of DCB, CID, CR No.47 of 2017 (Original CR No.468 of 2017 registered with Kandivali Police Station) for the offences punishable under Ss. 387, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and 3 (1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of MCOC Act.

2. It is the prosecution case that, the Appellant (Accused No.5) aided and abetted the Organized Crime Syndicate headed by Mr. Ravi Pujari by receiving and transferring money on behalf of the said syndicate to the absconding accused Bhagwan Shobhrajmal Krushnani @ Ajay Dixit. That, the Appellant therefore is a member of said Organized Crime Syndicate.

3. Mr. Thool, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that, the Appellant is running a business of 'Hawala' i.e. transfer of amount from one place to another place. That, it is at the request of Kamalsingh Vijaysingh Rajput @ Kamaluddin Mohammad Patel @ Raju (Accused No.4), the Appellant transferred certain amounts to Dubai which were received by the absconding accused and the Appellant has also received certain amounts from Dubai for and on behalf of Accused No.4. That, the Appellant had no knowledge, that by transfer of the said money, Appellant was aiding or assisting the Organized Crime Syndicate of Mr. Ravi Pujari. He submitted that, the Appellant had not abetted the said crime and therefore the definition of Sec. 2 (1) (a) will not attract in the present case as far as the Appellant is concerned. He vehemently submitted that, the Appellant's defence of 'knowledge' be tested herein, in this Appeal against rejection of his Application under Sec. 227 of Cr.P.C. and the Appellant be given benefit of the same by discharging him from the said case. He submitted that, the Appellant is merely a "Hawala Agent" and nothing beyond it. He relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim Musa Chauhan @ Baba Chauhan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in : JT2013(5)SC68 and in particular paragraph Nos.198 to 202 thereof. He therefore prayed that, the impugned Order may be set aside by allowing the present Appeal.

4. On the contrary, Mr. Dedhia, learned APP supported the impugned Order. Learned APP pointed out the relevant material against the Appellant on record. Learned APP submitted that, there is no infirmity or error in the impugned Order and therefore the same may be sustained by dismissing the present Appeal.

5. A useful reference at this stage can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, reported in AIR 1979 SC 366. It is necessary and useful to refer to paragraph 10 of the said judgment which reads as under:-

"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under sec. 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out:

(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion