Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 21 and 25 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999; Sections 4 and 167(2) Criminal Procedural Code, 1973.
Judgement by: High Court of Delhi
Judge/Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Facts
The Appellants were arrested for offences under the NDPS Act, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and MCOCA. The 90-day custody period expired and due to non-availability of a special judge, the investigation period was extended by Link Judge which was then challenged by the Appellants.
Key Legal Provisions
Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 21 and 25 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999; Sections 4 and 167(2) Criminal Procedural Code, 1973.
Issues raised
- Whether the Link Judge was empowered to pass orders extending the investigation period under MCOCA in the absence of the Special Judge.
Arguments of the case
The Appellants argued that the Link Judge, not being appointed under Section 5(3) MCOCA, lacked jurisdiction to pass orders under the Act while the Respondent argued that the Link Judge, being a member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, was qualified under Section 5(3) and empowered by the Link Roster.
Judgement
The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that in the absence of additional judges appointed under Section 5(3) MCOCA, the Sessions Judge retains power under Section 10(3) Cr.P.C. to arrange for disposal of urgent applications.The Court recommended that the State Government consider appointing additional judges to Special Courts to avoid such procedural difficulties.
Click here to VIEW full judgement.
