R. C. Chavan, J. - (1.) These two appeals by the original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 in Maharashtra Control of Organised Act, 1999 (Hereinafter referred to as MCOC Act) Special Case Nos. 23 of 2007 and 6 of 2008 are directed against their conviction by the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Act, 1999 at Bombay, and sentences imposed upon them at the end of the trial. The learned Judge convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 397, 457 and 506(II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on the first 2 counts and rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for two months on the third count. The learned Judge acquitted the appellants of the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, Sentences 4, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. He also acquitted co-accused i.e. accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6 to 9 of the offences for which they were charged. Facts which are material for deciding these appeals are as under:- On the night of 15th June, 2007, the first informant Ranjit Naik and his family members were sleeping in their house. In the early hours of 16th June, 2007, Ranjit got up to answer call of nature, when he noticed one person in the kitchen. By the time he raised alarm and other members of the family woke up, three more persons barged into the house by breaking open the front door of the house, They asked inmates of the house not to shout. The inmates also told the miscreants not to injure and take away whatever the miscreants wanted. The miscreants then fled away with valuables worth Rs. 3,24,000/- after tying Ranjit and his father Vijay. Their sister, Swapna, who was also in the house untied them. Ranjit went to neighbours house and telephoned police. The police party soon arrived. On a report by Ranjit, an offence was registered.
(2.) The police performed panchanama of the spot and started investigation. In course of investigation, appellants and others were arrested. At the instance of appellant Suresh - original accused No. 1, some items of jewelery were recovered from his Jeweler at Parli Vaijnath. They were identified as those of which complainant's family were robbed. Appellant Dashrath Bapu Shinde's interrogation led to recovery of certain implements used for house breaking. Nothing was recovered at the instance of appellant Kalyan alias Dalya. The recovery from Jeweler at Parli Vaijnath was in form of packets containing jewellery with names of other accused persons as well, as if other accused persons had deposited those items of jewelery with the jeweler.
(3.) In course of investigation, it was found some of the miscreants had previously been charge sheeted more than twice for similar offences carrying punishment of more than three years and that cognizance had been taken by the Courts concerned. Therefore, a proposal to apply the provisions of MCOC Act was moved and after receiving the necessary approval, investigation was taken over by Assistant Commissioner of Police. Confessional statements of some of the miscreants were got recorded by Deputy Commissioner of Police and after obtaining requisite approval for prosecuting all the accused persons for the offences punishable under the MCOC Act, charge sheet was sent to the Special Court for trial of the offences punishable under the MCOC Act.;