VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.981 OF 2008 Vijay Harishchandra Potdar Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents Mr. D. A. Nalawade, for the Petitioner. Mr. S.R. Borulkar, PP, for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO, & A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 18, 2008. PC :- 1. The matter was heard for some time The learned PP contends that the petitioner has come to this Court against the order refusing discharge. It is submitted that if this Court allows the petition filed by the petitioner herein, it would result in discharge of the petitioner, and hence, the order refusing discharge is not an interlocutory order but the said order is appellable under section 12(1) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime, Act, 1999. 2. In our opinion, the order passed cannot be said to be an interlocutory in the sense it is understood as - 2 - it has the effect, in case this court allows the petition, the petitioner will be discharged from the procedings. In the light of that, the petitioner has efficacious, alternative remedy by wy of appeal against the impugned order. We therefore, decline to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the delay in preferring the appeal against the impugned order should be condoned as it is open to pass the order for condoning the delay. However, it is open to the petitioner herein to point out in the proceeding if the appeal is preferred, that the time taken by this Court in this petition should be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. 4. With the above observation, petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- [ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.] [ F.I. REBELLO, J.]