Court acquits 4 persons charged under MCOCA for dacoity in Bhiwandi 11 years ago

A special court in Thane district has acquitted four persons charged under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act MCOCA for dacoity at a college in 2012 reported news agency PTISpecial Judge Amit M Shete of the MCOCA court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused who need to be given the benefit of doubt and acquitted reported PTIThe accused in the age group of 33 to 50 are residents of Ulhasnagar area in Thane and Nalla Sopara in neighbouring Palghar district reported PTIAnother accused person died during pendency of the case and hence the trial against him was abatedSpecial Public Prosecutor Sanjay More told the court that on July 18 2012 the accused carried out a dacoity in the office of a college in Bhiwandi area after assaulting the watchmen and tying them up reported PTIThe accused ransacked the office and also looted Rs 165000 in cash the prosecution told the court reported PTIAdvocates Poonit Mahimkar and Pankaj Kavale appearing for the accused contested the case and punched holes in the prosecution and police probe into the crime reported PTIIn the order the judge noted the prosecution lastly examined the Thane commissioner of police as prosecution witness who accorded sanction for charges under the MCOCA reported PTIIt is worth mentioning here that the sanction as contemplated under Section 231 and 2 is regarding taking cognisance of and investigation into an offence under the MCOCA the court said reported PTIThe judge referred to a judgement of the Bombay High Court which said the sanction is not granted to special court to take cognizance of the offence but it is granted to the prosecuting agency to approach the court concerned for enabling it to take cognizance of the offence and to proceed to trialThus on bare perusal of Section 231 and 2 coupled with the ratio noted above the purport and object laid down under Section 23 is enabling the investigating machinery to apply and obtain sanction so as to implicate accused under the MCOCA and thereafter enabling the special court to take cognizance under the MCOCA the court said reported PTIHence the purpose of grant of sanction is enabling the competent police authority to accord sanction on seeing the criminal record of the particular accused Thus the evidence of this witness is only restricted for grant of sanction and the accord of sanction means and presupposes that the accused are having criminal antecedents it said reported PTIThe evidence of this witness is restricted to the criminal antecedents of the accused and to the extent of grant of sanction it further saidThe evidence of this witness goes to show that the accused are having criminal antecedents The prosecution also produced on record the previous chargesheets filed against the accused persons the court said reported PTIOn the basis of the said material one can say that the accused are having criminal background and therefore the provisions under MCOCA are rightly and properly invoked it said reported PTIHowever for the reasons noted above the prosecution witnesses can be said to have failed to prove the offence which is initially punishable under Indian Penal Code and thus the charge under the MCOCA also can also be said to have failed the court said reported PTIThe prosecution relied upon the evidence of informant along with other witnesses However it is pertinent to note that the witnesses so examined on various memorandum cum seizure panchnama are the employees of the same college where the robbery took place it saidThis also creates doubt regarding the evidence so brought on record through these witnesses The sole eyewitness is not sufficient to say that the prosecution witnesses have in fact succeeded to bring home the guilt of accused that too beyond all reasonable doubt it said reported PTIThe evidence so brought on record falls short so as to say that the witnesses succeeded in establishing the chain of circumstances the court said reported PTIIn absence of the same the reasonable doubt raises regarding the complicity of present accused in the alleged crime Thus the benefit of doubt needs to be extended to the accused the court said reported PTIWith inputs from PTI