IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1326 OF 2008. APPLICATION NO.1326 OF 2008. APPLICATION NO.1326 OF 2008. Ashok Kumar Madhavlal Achaliya. ..Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Dinesh Tiwari, for the Applicant. Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 25TH JULY 2008. : 25TH JULY 2008. : 25TH JULY 2008. P.C. 1. By this Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Applicant has prayed for setting aside the application of the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "MCOC Act") to the case against the Applicant. 2. According to the Applicant, he is carrying on business as a Jeweller. The Applicant was arrested on 7th May 2007 on the allegation that he was concerned with an offence registered with Kapurbawdi - 2 - Police Station at Thane on 15th June 2006 under sections 342, 452, 395, 412 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 25(3) of the Arms Act. The allegation in the F.I.R is that on 15th June 2006, a group of decoits had attacked the Complainant and that they had looted belongings of the Complainant. It is alleged that the ornaments were sold by the co-accused to the Applicant and on the allegation of having received stolen ornaments, the Applicant was arrested. During the course of investigation, charges under MCOC Act were applied. It must be stated here that the Applicant had preferred Criminal Writ Petition No.536/2007 in this Court seeking quashing of the charges under MCOC Act. The said Petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 21st March 2007. It is submitted that the said Petition was not entertained only on the ground that the Petitioner had not surrendered. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that the provisions of MCOC Act could not have been applied in as much as - 3 - requirements of section 2(d) of the said Act have not been complied with. It is submitted that sanction for application of MCOC Act has been granted only on the ground that three criminal cases were pending against the members of the gang. It is submitted that on the date of commission of crime alleged against the Applicant, there were not even two cases pending in respect of which charge sheets were already filed. He has placed a reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ranjitsingh B. Sharma v/s. State of Maharashtra and Another [AIR 2005 S.C. 2277]. He also placed reliance on another decision of the Apex Court dated 9th February 2007 in the case of Dattatraya Krishna Ghule and Another V/s. State of Maharashtra and Another. He submitted that the provisions of MCOC Act were not applicable. 3. There is a reply filed by one Madan Manohar Ballal, Assistant Police Inspector, attached to Kapurbawdi Police Station. The said Officer has filed additional affidavit in which it is stated that atleast in two cases mentioned therein, charge sheets - 4 - were filed against the co-accused in the year 2004. The learned APP relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sharbahadur Akram Khan and Others v/s State of Maharashtra [2007(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 26]. 4. I have considered the submissions. Earlier Petition filed by the Applicant for quashing was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 21st March 2007. Apart from the fact that the said Petition was not entertained on the ground that the Applicant had not surrendered, it must be noted here that a prayer was made before the Division Bench for amending the said Petition. The said prayer was rejected as is apparent from the order dated 21st March 2007. 5. What is placed by the Applicant before this Court is only an order under section 23(2) granting sanction for prosecuting the Applicant and the co-accused for offences under the MCOC Act. At this stage, a finding cannot be recorded that the provisions of the MCOC Act are not applicable. The - 5 - State has filed an affidavit setting out that atleast in two offences, charge sheets were already filed in the year 2004. In view of what is stated in the supplementary affidavit filed by the Assistant Inspector of Police, the contention by the Applicant in this Application cannot be accepted at this stage. A substantive Petition filed by the Applicant has been rejected by a Division Bench of this Court. No case is made out for exercising power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Application is rejected. However, all contentions raised by the Applicant are kept open which can be agitated at the appropriate stage. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]