Smt. NISHITA MHATRE, J.:- This Appeal is directed against the order of the Special Court constituted under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act in Miscellaneous Application No.426 of 2005 in MCOC Special Case No.14 of 2005. The impugned order has been passed on an application under section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the appellant for being discharged.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :

An Organised Crime Syndicate headed by accused No.2, Chhota Shakeel who is absconding, is indulging in various nefarious activities including contract killing, extortion, etc. The ill gotten money from such illegal activities was invested by the accused in various areas including finance for films. Between the period 28.10.2000 and 30.11.2000 conversations between the absconding accused i.e, accused No.2 and the co-accused No.1 namely Nazim Rizvi @ Rajasaab with four others were recorded on several audio cassettes by the complainant in the present matter. According to the prosecution, the name of the appellant was referred to in the conversation between accused No.1 and the absconding accused. Based on the transcripts of the recorded conversations, a proposal was submitted to the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Mumbai seeking prior approval under section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act for recording information and registering a case under section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the MCOC Act. The Joint Commissioner of Police accorded sanction under section 23(2) of the MCOC Act. An FIR was lodged on 12.12.2000 against accused No.1 and the absconding accused. The accused No.1 and the absconding accused, accused Nos.3 Bharat Shah and accused No.4 Ahmed Samsudeen Mohammed Salihu @ Bhatija were, therefore, charged with having committed offences punishable under section 120-B, 302 r/w 115,387 of Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the MCOC Act. The case was registered as MCOCA Special Case No.4 of 2001.

3. The trial was conducted against the aforesaid four accused. By judgment and order dated 1.9.2003 of the Special Court, accused No.3 Bharat Shah and accused No.4 Bhatija were acquitted under the MCOC Act while accused No.1 Nazim Rizvi (Raja Saab) and Raheem Shaikh were convicted under the MCOC Act.

4. The Appellant who claims to be an employee of Bharat Shah was absconding from the year 2000 and surrendered before the Special Court only on 30.11.2004. He has been released on bail on 25.1.2005. On completion of investigations and after obtaining the requisite sanction from the Commissioner a charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Court and the appellant has been charged for committing offences punishable under sections 120-B r/w 302, 115 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the MCOC Act.

5. The appellant preferred an application dated 18.7.2005 under section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code for discharge on several grounds. This application was opposed by the prosecution contending that there was sufficient material implicating the appellant. The Special Court has by the impugned order dated 16.3.2006 rejected the application for discharge.

6. The main objections raised by the prosecution to the appellant's discharge application are: (i) the transcripts of the telephone conversations recorded between the absconding accused and accused No.1 refer to one "Tarun" who according to the prosecution is the appellant; (ii) a diary found in the handwriting of the appellant contains telephone numbers and other details indicating that the appellant had a nexus with the other accused; (iii) one of the co-accused Nazim Rizvi, the accused No.1, had confessed that the name "Tarun" in the conversations recorded between him and the absconding accused was that of the appellant and; (iv) that the appellant who claimed to be an employee of accused No.3 on a monthly salary of Rs.7 ,500/- had established a partnership firm in the name and style of Niru Diamonds