A mistake on the part of the court shall not cause prejudice to anyone.

1. The appellant was arrested on 1.12.2016 during investigation of the first information report (FIR) 10/2015 of police station Special Cell, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, as extended to Delhi (“MCOCA”, for short) and came to be remanded to custody by orders of an additional sessions judge who had been appointed as the presiding officer of the Special Court under MCOCA in terms of Section 5, such custody having been extended from time to time. By the criminal appeal at hand, presented under Sections 12 MCOCA, also invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), he challenges certain orders passed by the District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi and the additional sessions judge presiding over the Special Court MCOCA in the said case, primarily contending that his continued remand to judicial custody beyond 1.3.2017 is illegal and that he is entitled to release on bail on account of default on the part of the investigating police agency in completing the investigation and filing its report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. within the statutory period and thereby giving rise to right of release on bail in his favour in terms of the proviso to Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.(commonly known as “bail by default”).

2. MCOCA is a special law enacted with the objective to make special provisions “for prevention and control of, and for coping with, criminal activity by organized crime syndicate or gang, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” The expression “organized crime” is defined in Section 2(e) and is made a penal offence under Section 3. The law also conceives of organized crime being committed by, inter alia, an “organized crime syndicate”, an expression defined in Section 2(f), possession of unaccountable wealth on behalf of a member of such organized crime syndicate being also an offence in terms of Section 4. The offences punishable under this Act are triable only by a special court, constituted under Section 5, though it is clarified by Section 7 that such special court while trying an offence punishable under MCOCA may also try any other offence with which the accused may be charged at the same trial. The provisions contained in Section 6 and 9 MCOCA prescribe the jurisdiction, procedure and powers of the special court. The judgment, sentence or any order, not being an interlocutary order, of the special court is subject to appeal before this Court under Section 12. There are detailed provisions conferring certain special powers and authorization on the police empowered to investigate the crimes under this law.

3. Section 21 MCOCA is of special interest to the proceedings at hand in that it modifies certain procedures of the Code of Criminal Procedure for purposes of the cases under MCOCA. Particularly sub-section (2) of Section 21, being germane to the issues raised here, reads thus:-

(2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modifications that, in sub-section (2),—

(a) the references to “fifteen days”, and “sixty days”, wherever they occur, shall be construed as references to “thirty days” and “ninety days”, respectively;

(b) after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely :—

“Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Special Court shall extend the said period upto one hundred and eighty days, on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days.”.

4. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the subject of “information to the police and their powers to investigate” in chapter XII. After the information relating to commission of cognizable offence is reduced into writing in terms of Section 154, commonly known as