Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

In relation to the cases registered under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), the Bombay High Court has held that it would not be the appropriate report for extension of time of detention of the accused if the Public Prosecutor (PP) merely reproduces the application or request of the Investigating Officer in his report.

Terming the detention of a 20-year-old accused as “illegal”, a division bench of Justices Vinay Joshi and Bharat P Deshpande directed his release on bail after it found that there was no independent report of the PP showing application of mind and recording his satisfaction for the purpose of extension to file a charge-sheet.

In the instant case, the application for grant of extension though signed by the PP along with IO was a replica of the application which the Investigating Officer forwarded to the Public Prosecutor.

Also, the second application for extension filed by the Public Prosecutor along with the Investigating Officer before the Special Court was again the replica of the application which was addressed to the Public Prosecutor by the Investigating Officer.

In its order, the High Court said, “On minute observations, we are surprised to know that all the contents word by word, paragraph by paragraph, including full stops and commas, in these applications are identically the same.”

The High Court observed that the Public Prosecutor attached to the Special Court, completely failed in its duty to observe the mandate of the law as laid down under Section 21(2) (b) of the said Act, proviso of MCOC Act, 1999, scrupulously and law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Advocate Sirpurkar, appearing for the appellant, claimed that the extensions granted by the Special Judge, were without application of mind and without following settled propositions of law as it was mandatory for the Public Prosecutor to submit his independent report satisfying himself, after applying mind to the papers placed before him by the Investigating Officer, so as to place it before the Special Judge, for grant of extension.

It was contended that in terms of the provision contained under Section 21(2)(b) of the MCOCA, 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.

On the other hand, APP Rode, appearing for the state, objected on the grounds raised in the appeal claiming that the Public Prosecutor applied its mind and filed a report giving justification for extension.

The Section 21(2)(b) of the MCOC Act, 1999 reads as “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 up to 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”.

In the Hitendra Thakur case, the Apex Court said that the duty of the Public Prosecutor attached to the Special Court is something special in which he has to apply his mind independently and satisfy himself as to whether there is actually need for extension of time to file the charge-sheet.

The court said the Public Prosecutor along with his report may attach the request of the Investigating Officer made to him, but he has to demonstrate by giving his reasons as to why he is supporting the contentions raised by the Investigating Officer for extension of time.

Ordering release of the appellant, the High Court asked him to furnish PR bond of Rs 50,000 with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court.

Cause Title- Darshan Subhash Nandagawali v. State of Maharashtra