STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. AJAY JAGDISH PANDE
LAWS(BOM)-2014-6-94
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on
June 25,2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Appellant
VERSUS
Ajay Jagdish Pande
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KISHAN SINGH VS. THE KING EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]GARIKAPATI VEERAYA VS. N SUBBIAH CHOUDHRY [REFERRED TO]
TARACHAND DAMU SUTAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
MURLIDHAR MEGHRAJ LOYA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS TO GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL VS. ABANI MAITY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. NATWARLAL DAMODARDAS SONI [REFERRED TO]
P S R SADHANANTHAM VS. ARUNACHALAM [REFERRED TO]
A R ANTULAY VS. RAMDAS SRINIWAS NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. MATHAI VERGHESE [REFERRED TO]
SUKHBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
JK INTERNATIONAL VS. STATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL VS. VINESH ANAND [REFERRED TO]
BALRAM KUMAWAT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PRITHVI RAJ VS. KAMLESH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
PARKASH SINGH BADAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
VINOD G ASRANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
JAMIRUDDIN ANSARI VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR VS. CHAIRMAN AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KAMALJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
JONNALAGADDA SAMARAJYAM VS. REGIATRAR SPECIAL COURT CONSTITUTED UNDER A P LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION [REFERRED TO]
DATTATRAY KRISHNAJI GHULE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. JAGAN GAGANSINGH NEPALI ALIAS JAGYA [REFERRED TO]
N.KANNAPAN VS. STATE (UNION TERRITORY) ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(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 (Exhibit21) 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 said offence/offences. He, therefore, by the impugned order, directed the case to be transferred to the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, as empowered by section 11 of the MCOC Act. Being aggrieved thereby, these two appeals have been filed.
(3.)Criminal Appeal No.722 of 2012 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra while Criminal Appeal No.1325 of 2011 has been filed by one Sandhya Prafulla Patil who is the wife of the deceased Prafulla Patil, claiming to be a victim of the alleged offence/offences.
(2.)The respondent no.3 had filed an application (Exhibit21) 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 said offence/offences. He, therefore, by the impugned order, directed the case to be transferred to the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, as empowered by section 11 of the MCOC Act. Being aggrieved thereby, these two appeals have been filed.
(3.)Criminal Appeal No.722 of 2012 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra while Criminal Appeal No.1325 of 2011 has been filed by one Sandhya Prafulla Patil who is the wife of the deceased Prafulla Patil, claiming to be a victim of the alleged offence/offences.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.