1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2256 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra. ... Applicant. V/s. Deepak Akaram Babar & Ors. ... Respondents. .... Mrs. A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. Balwant V. Patole i/b. S.A. Masal for Respondent No.1 Mr. N.N. Gawankar alongwith Arfan Sait for Respondent No.2. Mr. Umesh Mankapure for Respondent No.3 to 7. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 11TH AUGUST 2008. P.C. :- PW-8 Suresh Pawar while attached to Vishrambag Police Station, Sangli as P.I. had sent proposal to Special I.G.P., Kolhapur taking permission to register offence under M.C.O.C. Act against the Accused/Respondents and such proposal is tendered in the Court at Exhibit 169 and the approval is at Exhibit 166. PW-1 Dinkar Maruti Patil is an advocate has deposed that on 4.11.1998 he alongwith his son had taken the meals together and thereafter he learnt that his son 2 has not returned to his flat for which the missing complaint was filed. 2. Later on he filed complaint against Samir Patil, Dadasaheb Sawant, Pol and Balu Bhokare having involved in which Police filed chargesheet against Sameer Patil. It is curious PW-1 learnt about the proceedings under the M.C.O.C. Act against the accused only on received summons from the Court. He was unaware when his statement was recorded, that the statement was being recorded for an investigation for the offence relating to M.C.O.C. Act. he accpeted, he did not state having received a telephonic call mentioning the names of the person including the accused. PW-2 Suresh Shelke an agriculturalist has deposed about missing of his cousine sister for which he received a telephonic call. However, he filed complaint against one Deepak Babar and since his sister's marriage, he did not prosecute the matter. However, PW-2 does not know who is said Babar. PW-3 Sudenra Ramchandra Kulkarni deposed that there was a quarrel between one Babar and Anil Survoday. He demanded certain amount which said Babar took. Babar refused and consequently he filed complaint against only Babar for which 3 complaint was recorded at Miraj. PW-4 is running a grosery shop. Shrikant is his elder brother. According to him, Dada Sawant had gone to house of brother and the said persons demanded money to his brother. It is apparent that PW-4 had no personal knowledge of all the events. PW-5 Jagannath Chandrashekhar Lokhande carried investigation while at Vishrambag Police Station and he was complainant in Crime No.194 of 2001 for the offence under Section 353, 332, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. against one Dada Sawant and the matter was investigated by P.I. Kamble. 3. The sanction granted by PW-9 Madan Marutrao Chavan is thrashed to pieces by the learned defence Counsel in the cross examination as the sanctioning authority was consciously unaware as to what are the consequences of the sanction and in particular the provisions of Section 3(1), Section 3(2), Section 3(4) and Section 3(5) of M.C.O.C. Act and the witness was unable to convey as to which evidence under Section 3(1) or under Section 3(4) or 3(5) of the Act was committed by the accused persons. 4 4. The learned Sessions Judge found that the contension in the F.I.R. cannot be used as a substantial piece of evidence which can be used only to the extent of corroboration. However, he noticed in the report of Suresh Pawar that there is nothing to suggest that the accused collectively or individually were members of a unlawful organization with an object of effecting illegal activities of terrorism. It may be true that Exhibit 174 is disclosing earlier several offences which were in fact for the period of 1989-98 before implementation of the M.C.O.C. Act 1999. Again the learned Sessions Judge noticed that in the chargesheet of Sessions Case No.194 of 2001, 51 of 2001, 100 of 2000, 64 of 2000, 15 of 2001, 94 of 2001, 49 of 1999, 35 of 2001 and 83 of 2001. It is noted that all the accused were arrayed of the accused persons except one accused to be mostly said to be common. The assessment of the evidence before the learned Sessions Judge made in not to give effect to the charge levelled against the accused. 5. On entire analysis of evidence and the reasoning recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, I do not find that it requires any interference and hence leave to appeal refused. 5 (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)