IMPORTANT POINT
Extension of time for investigation of offence – Application of mind by Public Prosecutor is mandatory.

JUDGMENT

Bharat P. Deshpande, J.—Admit. Heard finally by the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The appellant is one of the accused in Crime No.357/2022, registered with Police Station Civil Lines, District – Akola, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 143 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(i)(ii), Section 3(2) and Section 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999. Present appeal is filed under Section 12 of MCOC Act, 1999, thereby challenging three orders, (i) First order of extension granted to the Investigation Agency for a period of 60 days under Section 21(2)(b) of MCOC Act, on 07.11.2022 by the Special Court, (ii) Order rejecting bail application filed by the appellant under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 21(2)(b) of MCOC Act dated 09.12.2022 and (iii) Second extension of 15 days granted to the Investigation Agency under Section 21(2)(b) of the MCOC Act dated 09.01.2023.

3. Learned counsel Mr. Sirpurkar, basically raised three grounds thereby challenging the impugned orders. Firstly, he claimed that both extensions granted by the Special Judge, are without application of mind and without following settled propositions of law as laid down in Section 21(2)(b), proviso, wherein it is mandatory for the Public Prosecutor to submit his independent report by applying mind to the facts and circumstances of the case for applying for extension of time. Secondly, he claimed that after the first extension was granted without following due procedure, rejection of bail was totally illegal, thereby detaining the appellant in illegal custody. Thirdly, he claimed that second extension was granted by the learned Special Court, only on the ground that Investigating Agency were awaiting sanction from the Government under the MCOC Act, which is not at all a ground for further extension. Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions:—

(i) Shaikh Moin Shaikh Mehmood Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 968.

(ii) Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 602.

(iii) Santosh S/o. Kisanrao Sonone Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Bail Application No.820/2014 decided on 24.12.2014 by this Court.

(iv) Pahadiya Tulshiram Champala Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 8506.

(v) Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453.

(vi) Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405.

4. Mr. Rode, learned APP appearing for the State strongly objected on the grounds raised in the appeal thereby claiming that the learned Public Prosecutor applied its mind and filed an application/report giving justification for extension. He further submitted that obtaining sanction is part and parcel of the investigation process and therefore, such ground is not available to the appellant. He then submitted that after the second extension of 15 days, charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge and therefore, prayer for grant of default bail is now infructuous.

5. With the assistance of Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Rode, learned APP, we have perused the entire record. Similarly, the Pursis was filed on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor thereby placing on record application of Investigation Officer addressed to the learned APP for purpose of seeking extension to file charge-sheet. On perusal of above material, a short question which cropped up in the present appeal is as under together with our findings.

(i) Whether applications dated 07.11.2022 and 07.01.2023 seeking extension of time filed under Section 21(2)(b) of the MCOC Act, having joint signature of the Investigation Officer and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor amount to due compliance of the proviso to Section 21(2)(b) of the said Act ?

6.