1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the order dated 6/12/2004 passed by the learned Special Judge under the MCOC Act, Mumbai in MCOC Special Case No.4 of 2003. In the said case the present respondent no.2 is the complainant and the petitioner is the accused no.1. By the impugned order the learned Special Judge has directed to issue process against the petitioner - accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Section 3(5) and Section 4 read with Section 24 of the MCOC Act and also under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The respondent no.2 approached the Designated Court under the MCOC Act and filed a private complaint which came to be registered as Misc. Application No.255 of 2003 against five accused and he submitted a list of witnesses. On verification of the complaint two witnesses were examined by the learned Special Judge and at that stage the present petitioner approached this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.1755 of 2003 praying for quashing the proceedings initiated by the complainant before the Special Court and by then the complaint filed by the respondent no.2 came to be registered as MCOC Special Case No.4 of 2003. The said petition was summarily rejected by this Court on 17th December 2003. It was noted in the said order by this Court that accused nos.2 and 3 in MCOC Special Case No.4 of 2003 i.e. Dr.Mrinalini Patil and Shri R.C. Agarwal had already appeared before the Special Court by filing applications on the basis of some newspaper reports and some orders had been passed on the said applications. It was further noted that if the Court decided to issue an order of process, it was bound to take further steps as contemplated under the MCOC Act as well as other procedural law viz. the Criminal Procedure Code. In para 22 of the said order dated 17/12/2003 this Court observed as under:

"It is seen from the record that the complainant has submitted a long list of witnesses and in addition private application letters seem to have been received by the Special Court. After the complaint has been verified the statement of two witnesses have been recorded on oath and (sic - after) Shri Sandeep Bishnoi submits his investigation report, it may be necessary for the learned Special Judge to limit the number of witnesses for recording statement on oath so as to examine whether a prima facie case has been made out under MCOCA so as to proceed further for passing the order for issuance of process. The court below would certainly exercise its judicial discretion in screening the list of witnesses even when the trial, if any, commences and the record also reveals that the learned Special Judge is aware of the limitations governing his authority under MCOCA and he would take all steps to ensure that the trial, if commences, is taken to its logical conclusion within a reasonable time. If the learned Special Judge finally comes to the conclusion to pass an order under sec. 204 of the Code, he would apply his judicious mind and exercise the judicial discretion in dealing with the further legal procedure so as to ensure that the same does not open floodgates for abusing the process of law."

3. On 8th March 2004 the learned Special Judge passed the following order:

ORDER

Sessions Registrar shall produce before the Commissioner of Police Mumbai a set of certified true xerox copies from the original of the following record and proceedings namely

1) Complaint filed by Ketan Tirodkar.

2) Verification statement made by complainant made before this Court.

3) Copies of the statements made by total 9 witnesses examined in support of the complaint.

4) Copy of the report submitted by A.C.P. Shri Shankar Kamble along with copies of documents submitted along with the report.

5) Copy of the report submitted by D.C.P. Shri Sandeep Bishnoi.

6) All the copies of exhibits and