B. R. GAVAI, J. :- Heard.

2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for hearing finally.

3. The Petitioner has approached this Court praying for setting aside the order of conviction dated 16th May, 2007 and for release of the petitioner from the said case.

4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition are as under:

The petitioner along with 12 others was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (ii) and 3(4) of The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ("MCOC Act" for short). One of them was discharged and two being juveniles, their trial was separated. As such only eight accused underwent the trial. The present petitioner after framing of the charges pleaded guilty. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge found that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case against the other seven accused. It was specifically found that the prosecution has failed to bring on record sufficient evidence to establish that the provisions of MCOC Act were attracted. As such, other seven accused came to be acquitted. In this back ground, the petitioner has approached this court.

5. Taking into consideration the important aspect, we had requested Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Advocate to act as amicus curiae in the matter.

6. Heard Shri R.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri M.K. Pathan, learned APP and Shri A.S. Mardikar, learned amicus curiae.

7. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a fit case wherein this Court while exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should set aside the conviction of the present petitioner for the offences under the provisions of MCOC Act. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had pleaded guilty since he was informed that if he does not plead guilty, his entire family members would be booked in the said case. It is submitted that when the trial Judge does not find the case as put forth by the prosecution sufficient enough to invoke the provisions of MCOC Act and acquits the other accused, conviction of the present petitioner would be unsustainable in law. It is submitted that only because the accused has pleaded guilty in certain circumstances cannot be a ground for his continuation behind the bar. The learned counsel relies on the following Judgments:

i) Pepsi Foods Limited and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998 (1) B.Cr.C.(SC) 320 : [1998 ALL MR (Cri) 144 (S.C.)]

ii) Topandas vs. The State of Bombay, AIR 1956 Supreme Court, 33.

iii) State of Maharashtra vs. Sharad Keshav & others, 1967 Cri. L.J. 165.

iv) Niranjan Lall Arya vs. State, AIR 1954 Calcutta 82.

v) U.R. Ramaswami, 1954 AIR (Madras) 1020

vi) Murarji Raghunath Gujarati vs. Emperor, AIR 1919 Bombay 160.

8. Shri Pathan, learned APP on the contrary submits that the petitioner having admitted the guilt of committing offence cannot be permitted to turn around and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The learned APP, therefore, submits that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. Shri A.S.Mardikar, learned amicus curiae as well assisted us.

10. The facts are not in dispute. The learned trial Judge by his judgment dated 7.7.2010 has specifically found that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring evidence on record so as to convict the accused for the offences under the provisions of MCOC Act and acquitted seven accused but has convicted the present petitioner on the basis of his plea of guilt.

11. The question for consideration, therefore, would be as to whether when the prosecution fails to bring the evidence on record to establish commission of the offence under the provisions of MCOC Act, whether the conviction of the present petitioner only on the plea of guilt would be sustainable or not.

12. The Apex Court in the case of Topandas (supra) was considering the question as to whether when the other accused have been acquitted for the offence under Secti