1 The appellants are the accused in MCOC Special Case No.21 of 2006, pending before the Judge of the Special Court constituted under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'MCOC Act' for the sake of brevity). They are aggrieved by the order dated 1 August 2012 passed by the learned Trial Judge refusing to permit them to examine four witnesses in their defence. They have, therefore, approached this Court by filing an appeal as contemplated under section 12 of the MCOC Act, praying that the said order refusing to issue summonses to the said witnesses, be set aside and the appellants be allowed to lead defence evidence, as proposed by them.

2 The appellants are also aggrieved by two other orders passed by the learned Judge of the Special Court, and have filed separate appeals challenging the said orders also (Appeal No.973 of 2012 and 992 of 2012). Though the appeals were heard together, the questions needing determination in the present appeal, and in the said two appeals, not being the same, the said two appeals are being disposed of by a separate, but common order.

3 The said MCOC Special Case No.21 of 2006 relates to seven serial bomb blasts that took place in the local trains of Western Railway on 11 July 2006 resulting in the death of 187 persons. Initially, six different crimes were registered at different police stations with respect to the said bomb blasts, and separate investigations into those offences had commenced. However, subsequently, the investigation of all the said crimes was taken over by the Anti Terrorism Squad, Mumbai. Later on, provisions of the MCOC Act were applied to the said case. The accusation which the appellants are facing in the said MCOC Special case is in respect of offences punishable under sections 302 IPC, 307 IPC, 326 IPC, 436 IPC, 427 IPC, 120B IPC, 120A IPC, 123 IPC, 124 IPC read with section 34 of the IPC, offences punishable under the Indian Explosives Act, and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, offences punishable under the Indian Railways Act, offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)Act 1967, and offences punishable under section 3(1)(i), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act.

4 The trial is in progress. Charge against the appellants was framed on 6 August 2007. The recording of evidence commenced on 8 December 2007. The prosecution closed its evidence on 4 April 2012.

5 The impugned order came to be passed in the following circumstances. After they had been called upon to enter on their defence, the appellants made an application (Exhibit 2891), praying that witness summons be issued to 79 persons (mentioned in the list contained therein) whom they wanted to examine as defence witnesses. Inspite of the objection raised by the prosecution, summonses were directed to be issued to some of the said witnesses, including the witnesses mentioned at Serial Nos.61 to 74, in the said list. Two defence witnesses were examined, and when some more were to be examined, pursuant to some objection raised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the Court called upon the accused persons to specify with respect to each witness as to whether such witness was being summoned only for production of documents, or for giving evidence, or for giving evidence in addition to the production of documents mentioned against the names of such persons in the list of witnesses. Such details were given on behalf of the accused persons. It is at that stage that the learned Special Public Prosecutor once again objected to calling the witnesses mentioned at Serial Nos.63 to 66 in the list of witnesses. The learned Judge, then, by an order dated 1 August 2012, declined to issue witness summonses to those persons, though he had earlier passed an order directing issuance of summonses to them. These witnesses are:

“63. Smt.Chitkala Zutshi

64. Shri Vishwas Nangre Patil, Dy.Commissioner of Police.

65. Shri Milind Bharambe, Dy.Commissioner of Polic