cri apeal 220-22 st 4762-2 ia 989-22 987-22 & apeal 221-22.doc

R.M. AMBERKAR

(Private Secretary)

IN

IN THE

THE HIGH

HIGH COURT

COURT OF

OF JUDICATURE

JUDICATURE AT

AT BOMBAY

BOMBAY

CRIMINAL

CRIMINAL APPELLATE

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2022

Mubin Kadar Shaikh

.. Appellant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

.. Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2022

1. Ansar Ahmad Basdshah Shaikh

2. Mubin Kadar Shaikh

3. Farooque Sharfoddin Tarkash

4. Yasir Anis Sayyed

.. Appellants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

.. Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO. 4762 OF 2022

WITH

CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 987 OF 2022

AND

CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 989 OF 2022

Mubin Kadar Shaikh

.. Appellant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

.. Respondent

....................



Mr. Mubin Solkar a/w Mr. Aamir Sopariwala i/by Ms. Tahera

Qureshi for the Appellants



Mr. A.M. Chimalkar, a/w Mr. Siddharth Jagusthe, Special P.P. for

the State



Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State



Mr. Prashant Sawant, API for CIU

...................

CORAM

: SMT SADHANA S. JADHAV &

MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

Reserved on

: APRIL 22, 2022

Pronounced on

: MAY 04, 2022

1 of 7

cri apeal 220-22 st 4762-2 ia 989-22 987-22 & apeal 221-22.doc

P.C. : [ PER MILIND N,JADHAV, J.]

1.

Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 2022 has been filed by the

Appellant - Mubin Kadar Shaikh to quash and set aside the order

dated 24.04.2019 whereby the Appellant's application under Exhibit

396 has been rejected by the Trial court in Sessions Case No. 4 of

2015 (previously numbered as MCOCA Special Case No. 4 of 2009).

2.

Appellant is accused No. 8 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2015

pending with the Special Court constituted under the NIA Act, 2008

arising out of C.R. Nos. 152/2008 and 162/2008 of DCB-CID,

Mumbai. On 26.02.2013, the Appellant and one another co-accused

filed an application vide Exhibit '623' before the then Special MCOCA

Court challenging quashing of the invocation of the provisions of

Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999 in Sessions

Case No. 4 of 2015 on the ground that there was no prima facie

material to frame charges against the applicants under the said

provisions.

3.

During pendency of the aforesaid application under Exhibit

'623', on 10.12.2013 charges were framed against the accused thereby

making the application filed vide Exhibit '623' redundant.

4.

On 15.04.2014, the learned Special Judge called upon the

prosecution to explain as to why the charges under the MCOC Act

2 of 7

cri apeal 220-22 st 4762-2 ia 989-22 987-22 & apeal 221-22.doc

should not be dropped in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court

in Civil Appeal No. 1975 of 2008 in the case of Zameer Ahmed Latifur

Rehman Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. However, on

01.09.2014, the said Exhibit '623' was disposed of as 'not survived'.

5.

The prosecution has filed a reply under Exhibit 402 to the

application of the appellant under Exhibit 396 claiming that the

Appellant was well aware that he has not only been prosecuted under

the provisions of the MCOC Act but also under the provisions of the

UAP Act, 1967 which is triable by the Special Court constituted under

Section 22 of the NIA Act, 2008. Hence, the prosecution asserted that

the application filed by the Appellant was not maintainable. On

15.05.2015, the learned Sessions Court has framed a question as to

why the charges under MCOC Act should not be dropped.

6.

The prosecution has asserted that due process of law as laid

down under the provisions of Sections 226 and 227 of the Cr.P.C. was

followed and the learned Sessions Court proceeded to frame the

charges on 10.12.2013. It is further stated that the Appellant and

other accused gave their no-objection to framing of the charges when

the charges were framed by the Sessions Court. Therefore, it