IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution under the M.C.O.C. Act requires that the necessary ingredients, including prior cognizance in multiple cases, must be satisfied at the time of the commission of the offence.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Gadkari, J. - The aforenoted Appeals are filed under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, " the said Act") impugning the Orders dated 6th March, 2023 passed below Exhibit Nos.140 and 133 respectively, in Special Case No.909 of 2020, by the learned Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, rejecting their Applications for dropping the charges/provisions of the M.C.O.C. Act from the said case.

1.1 Appellants in Appeal No.472 of 2023 are original accused Nos.5 and 6 and Appellant in Appeal No.523 of 2023 is original accused No.4 in Special Case No.909 of 2020. The said Sessions case arises out of crime bearing No.RC-02/2019/NIA/MUM registered with the National Investigating Agency i.e. the Respondent No.1 herein and originally registered as C.R. No.19 of 2019 with Purada Police Station, District Gadchiroli dated 2nd May, 2019.

1.2 Appellants are being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 353, 427, 120-B, 121, 121A, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, Sections 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sections 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the M.C.O.C. Act.

1.3 Record indicates that, a crime bearing No.19 of 2019 was registered with Purada Police Station, Gadchiroli on 2nd May, 2019, for an incident occurred on 1st May, 2019. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, the Government appointed Respondent No.1 as its investigating agency. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 4th December, 2019.

1.4 During the course of investigation it was revealed that, the said offence was committed by the organized crime syndicate of a banned Terrorist Organization namely "CPI (M)". It was also revealed to the investigating agency that, during the last 10 preceding years more than 23 cases have been registered against the arrested principal accused Smt. Nirmala Kumari Uppuganti @ Narmada Akka @ Alluri Usharani d/o Subba Rao Uppuganti (A-1). That, the Superintendent of Police, N.I.A., Mumbai therefore submitted his report dated 6th December, 2019 for applying the provisions of the said Act to the said crime to the Concerned Authority. The Deputy Inspector General, N.I.A., New Delhi, by its Order dated 7th February, 2020 passed under Section 23(1)(i) of the said Act, granted permission to apply the provisions of the M.C.O.C. Act to the said crime. After conducting further investigation, a supplementary charge-sheet is filed on 24th September, 2020.

2. The Appellants thereafter filed Applications below Exhibits 140 and 133 respectively for dropping the charges/provisions of the M.C.O.C. Act and/or to discharge them from the provisions of the said Act, from the present case. As noted earlier, the trial Court by its impugned Order dated 6th March, 2023 has rejected the said Applications.

3. Mr. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants in Appeal No.472 of 2023 submitted that, in the present case the date of alleged commission of offence is 1st May, 2019 and the date of registration of offence is 2nd May, 2019. That, the Competent Authority while granting prior approval to apply provisions of the said Act has relied on two crimes mentioned therein. That, as far as crime No.99 of 2019 is concerned, the cognizance of the same was taken by the trial Court on 30th May, 2019. He submitted that, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahipal Singh Vs. C.B.I. and Anr reported in (2014) 11 S.C.C. 282, on the date of lodgment of the crime to which the provisions of M.C.O.C. Act are applied, the cognizance of both the cases must have been taken by the trial Court, otherwise the prior approval granted by the concerned authority is bad in law and the accused cannot be prosecuted for the offence under the provisions of the said Act. He submitted that, therefore the impugned Order