Jurisdiction under MCOCA is restricted to designated Special Courts, and any extension of investigative custody requires adherence to statutory protocols to ensure legality of judicial actions.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. These appeals under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, (the MCOCA) have been filed by the accused persons in Crime No. 186/2025, Sultanpuri, Police Station aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2025 as per which the trial court dismissed their applications for default bail. The appellants/accused persons as per the aforesaid FIR are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under various Sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act), Section 113 and 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 18 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Sections 3 and 4 of the MCOCA.

2. According to the learned counsel for the appellants/accused persons, the impugned order has been passed by the Link Judge in the absence of the Special Judge and hence invalid. Referring to Sections 5 and 6 of the MCOCA, it was argued that it is only the Special Court constituted under the MCOCA that has the power to pass orders relating to offences under the MCOCA, and hence the impugned order cannot be sustained. It was submitted that an Additional Sessions Judge, who has not been appointed in accordance with Section 5 (3) of the MCOCA, has no jurisdiction to deal with MCOCA cases. Reliance is placed on the dictum inA.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak , (1988) 2 SCC 602, to submit that jurisdiction is purely a matter of legislative mandate, and neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court can confer jurisdiction on a particular court without following the due procedure of law in accordance with the statute. A judge can exercise powers under MCOCA only if appointed through the procedure prescribed under the statute, and in the absence of a notification constituting a Special Court under Section 5 of the MCOCA, no court can assume such jurisdiction. Reliance was also placed on the dictum inJamiruddin Ansari v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 2781 to state that MCOCA has an overriding effect over the CrPC. It was also submitted that under Section 21(2)(b) of MCOCA, only the Special Court has the power to extend custody, and neither the Link Additional Sessions Judge nor any other court can exercise that power. He further submitted that any application relating to the extension of the investigation or custody must be postponed till the Special Court is constituted. Lastly, he submitted that the only remedy left in the absence of a Special Court would be to approach the High Court seeking directions to the State to appoint a Special Judge, as no judge other than a duly appointed Special Judge can assume jurisdiction under MCOCA, and continuation of custody otherwise would be wholly without authority of law. Reference was also made toAbdul Rashid Sikandersab Kulkarni & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 1306/2006) dated 06.07.2006,Yogesh Mittal vs. State of NCT of Delhi 246 (2018) DLT 582 (DB),Khalid Ahmad & four others vs. The State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No. 1395/2016) dated 11.09.2017.

3. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that as per Annexure E dated 27.10.2025 Link Roster, the Link Judge was fully empowered to pass orders in the absence of the Special Judge, and hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. It was submitted that, admittedly, the Link Judge is a member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services and hence qualified as per the requirement in Section 5 (3) of the MCOCA. He further submitted that it is not the Presiding Officer b