1

appln3212.11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

Criminal Application NO. 3212 OF 2011

Rakesh S/o Dattatraya Dhawade, Age :

major, Occ : Business, R/o Pune.

Applicant

V E R S U S

The Sate of Maharashtra

Respondent

Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel holding for

Mr. S.B. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, APP for respondent /State.

CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE, J.

DATE : 3rd May, 2012

ORAL JUDGMENT

This application challenges a peculiar order passed

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna in

Sessions Case no. 28 of 2007 keeping the entire trial in

abeyance. The learned Judge held that the Sessions Case

should be kept in abeyance in view of the provisions of

Section 10 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime

Act, 1999.

2.

The facts are admitted. Sessions Case no. 28 of 2007

is in respect of a bomb blast which occurred at Masjid at

Jalna on 27.08.2004. Soon after the bomb blast, the

F.I.R. was filed and the offence was registered. During

investigation, initially five accused were arrested and

the charge sheet was filed against them prior to 8^th

January, 2008. Thereafter, the applicant was shown

arrested in that case on 15^th November, 2008 and the

supplementary charge sheet was also filed against him.

2

appln3212.11

The applicant is in custody since prior to 15^th November,

2008 in Special Case No. which is pending before the

Special Judge, Greater Bombay. Offences punishable under

the provisions of MCOC Act, 1999 are alleged against the

applicant and other accused in that case. The case is

pending since 2007 but has hardly made any progress so

far. Even the charge is not framed though number of

accused are still in custody.

3.

In this background, on the other side, at Jalna

Sessions Case no. 28 of 2007 was taken up for trial,

charge was framed, evidence was recorded and the stage of

recording of statement under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure reached some time prior to 7^th May,

2011. Since the applicant was in custody at Mumbai, his

presence was needed for recording his statement under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Jalna

Court. So, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna,

sought production of the applicant before him, but then

he learnt that the applicant is also facing a case filed

against him under the provisions of MCOC Act. On his own,

he, on perusal of Section 10 of the Act held that the

Sessions Case no. 28 of 2007 pending before him should be

kept in abeyance.

4.

This order is challenged in this application. The

State Government opposed application by filing an

affidavit.

5.

The question before me is short and can be quoted as

under :-

3

appln3212.11

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case,

Section 10 of the MCOC Act should prevent the disposal of

Sessions Case no. 28 of 2007 ?"

6.

The Section 10 of the MCOC Act reads as under :-

"Section 10 :-

Trial by Special Courts to have precedence

:- The trial or any offence under this Act by a Special Court

shall have precedence over the trial of any other case

against the accused in any other court (not being a Special

Court) and shall be concluded in preference of the trial of

such other case and accordingly the trial of such other

cases shall remain in abeyance.”

7.

It is clear from the wording of this Section that

the Legislature wanted precedence to the cases filed

under the MCOC Act for trial over other cases. The

Section does not stop at that but makes it obligatory

that in case a trial of