clearly discloses the mandate of the legislature that the cognizance of the ofences under the MCOC Act should not be in routine course, but only upon the facts disclosing the applicability thereof and satisfaction of the ofcer of the high rank, the minimum being of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police in that regard. In fact, the ofcer of such high rank is required to decide about the approval even for recording of FIR in relation to any ofence under the MCOC Act. This obviously discloses that the approving authority has to apply its mind about the applicability of the provisions of the MCOC Act to the facts disclosed in a matter before allowing the recording of FIR and for that purpose, he must be, prima facie, satisfed about the commission of ofence of organized crime under the MCOC Act by the person or persons against whom the FIR is to be recorded. Obviously, for prima facie satisfaction regarding the commission of the ofence of organized crime or of participation therein in whatever manner, the approving authority must have some materials before it disclosing the activities of the person or the persons to be of the nature of ofence under the MCOC Act and having committed such activities on or after 24th February, 1999. In other words, the activities of a person to be termed as the ofence under the MCOC Act, the same should inevitably disclose to have been committed on or after 24th February, 1999. If the activity of the person is relating to the period prior to 24th February, 1999, obviously, it cannot be said to be an ofence under MCOC Act, even though the activity may be an ofence under the provisions of some other statute in force at the relevant time. For the same reason, when the approval is granted for recording of FIR and the FIR is
