← Library
Bombay High CourtAPEAL/168/2018others disposed off

Kafeel Ahemad S/O Ayyub Ansari v. The State Of Maharashtra

2018-07-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sarang Vijaykumar Kotwal,Hon'Ble Shri Justice B.R. Gavai2 pages

Balaji Govindrao Panchal (3)-Apeal-168-18.doc. 1 Balaji Govindrao Panchal Date: 2018.07.19 12:47:32 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.168 OF 2018 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1014 OF 2018 Kafeel Ahemad s/o Ayyub Ansari ..Appellant/Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr. T. W. Pathan a/w Mr. I. A. Shaikh, Advocate for the Appellant/Applicant.

Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for the Respondent - State. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATE : 16th JULY, 2018 P.C.

1] Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the perusal of Section 2(1)(d) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 ("MCOC Act" for short) would reveal that for invoking the provisions of MCOC Act, the previous charge-sheets are required to be filed with regard to offence committed within State of Maharashtra and not charge-sheets which are filed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of State of Maharashtra. In this respect, the learned counsel for the Appellant relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in the case of State Vs. BGP.

(3)-Apeal-168-18.doc. 2 Brijesh Singh @ Arun Kumar @ Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.358 of 2014.

2] However, the said contention is considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court (A. M. Khanwilkar, J as His Lordship then was) and after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharat Chaganlal Raghani & Ors. reported in (2001) 9 SCC 1, rejected the same. The learned Single Judge has given elaborate reasons for rejecting the contention which was raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant in the said case.

3] We are in respectful agreement with a view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court. In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the Appeal. The Appeal is rejected. 4] In view of disposal of Appeal, nothing survives in the application. The same is disposed of as such. [SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] BGP.