Ranjana Desai, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. The appellant is original accused 8 in MCOC Special Case No. 8 of 2007 pending in the Special Designated Court constituted under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (“the MCOC Act” for short).

3. It is necessary to begin with the prosecution case. The prosecution case rests on the evidence of two witnesses. They are referred to as Mr. `X’ and Mr. `Y’ so as not to disclose their identity. It is the case of Mr. `X’ that on 8/10/2006 he received a telephone call from an unknown person who introduced himself as Guru Satam. He stated that he and his associates are required to be paid Diwali. After two days, Mr. `X’ received another call from one Raju threatening him of dire consequences and demanding money. After a few days the said person again gave a telephone call from overseas telephone number and asked Mr. `X’ to contact Guru Satam on the said phone. Thereafter he received a call from a person who identified himself as Guru Satam and demanded money and threatened him of dire consequences if the demand was not fulfilled.

Mr. `X’ apprehended danger to his life. He approached Anti Extortion Cell of DCB CID Mumbai and informed them about the incident. His statement was recorded by the police. It was treated as First Information Report.

During the investigation other accused came to be arrested on 7/12/2006, 8/12/2006 and 16/12/2006. It was revealed that the accused and their associates in India and abroad are members of organized crime syndicate headed by accused Guru Satam and they are indulging in commission of extortion by threatening the builders, who undertake development work under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

Prior approval to apply provisions of the MCOC Act was accorded by the Joint Commissioner of Police on 18/12/2006 and thereafter the provisions of the MCOC Act were applied to the case on 18/12/2006. The appellant was arrested on 29/12/2006.

During investigation, it was revealed that the appellant had taken active part in continuing unlawful activities and commission of organized crime on behalf of organized crime syndicate headed by accused Guru Satam. The investigation further revealed that the appellant had taken part in the negotiations of the extortion amount from a witness and he had accepted the amount on behalf of the syndicate. The appellant actively participated and facilitated in continuing the unlawful activities and commission of the organized crime in pursuance to a deep rooted conspiracy. On completing the investigation the charge sheet was submitted before the Special Court on 25/4/2007 against all the accused. On 8/9/2007, learned Special Judge released the appellant on bail. On 30/3/2009 the Special Court framed the charge under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act against the appellant.

4. The appellant filed an application for discharge before the Special Court. By the impugned order the said application was rejected. Hence the appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the said order.

5. We have heard Mr. Amit Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant at some length. Mr. Desai submitted that the Special Court erred in dismissing the application for discharge filed by the appellant. He submitted that the appellant is involved in the present case on account of business rivalry. The present prosecution is a malafide prosecution. Learned counsel submitted that the entire case of the prosecution rests on statements of two witnesses. Mr. Desai took us through those statements and submitted that they do not show that the appellant is a part of the organized crime syndicate and he is involved in their activities of giving threats or collecting money, etc. There is no evidence to indicate that the appellant is involved in the alleged deep rooted conspiracy. The statemen