NARESH H.PATIL, ABHAY M.THIPSAY
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Ajay Jagdish Pande – Respondent
(Per ABHAY.M.THIPSAY, J)
1. These two Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as they take exception to the same order i.e. the order dated 7th October 2011 passed by the Judge of the Special Court under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as “MCOC Act”) for Greater Bombay in MCOC Special Case No.9 of 2011 which was pending before him. The respondents herein are the accused in the said case.
2. The respondent no.3 had filed an application (Exhibit-21) before the Trial Court praying that the proceedings under the MCOC Act be dropped, and the case be sent for trial to the Court of Sessions. It was the contention of the respondent no.3 that since no offence punishable under the provisions of the MCOC Act was disclosed from the police report and accompanying documents, the said Special Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence in question. The learned Judge after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the offence allegedly committed by the respondents, as disclosed from the chargesheet, was not falling 'within the purview of the provisions of the MCOC Act' and that, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to try the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.