IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1698 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1698 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1698 OF 2008 Rohan Tukaram Ranjane ] .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ] .. Respondents Mr. P.M. Pradhan for the petitioner. Mr. R.B. Thakore with A.M. Chimalkar, PP, for the CBI. Ms. A.S. Pai, APP, for the respondent-State. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATED: 13TH OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order passed below Exhibits 2084 and 2096 in Spl. M.C.O.C. Act of 1999 Case No.2/2003, more popularly known as the "Telgi Scam" case. The charges in this case were framed by the Special Court after hearing each of the accused on the point of discharge as is provided for under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Writ Petition No. 2744 of 2006 was pending before this court and bail was being claimed in that : 2 : Petition. However, while the said Petition was pending, the charges were framed and it appears that the same has been brought to the notice of this court. This court disposed of the Writ Petition after making certain observations in respect of the charges already framed. Those observations are to the effect that mere reproduction of the statutory provisions by way of a charge is not the correct method of framing the charge, but the factual matrix which constitutes the charge viz. the act of each of the accused as briefly as possible is required to be covered while framing the charge and, therefore, the Division Bench expressed hope and expectation that the MCOCA court would suo motto take up the matter for reframing of the charges in accordance with the provisions of law. It is pertinent to note that neither the order of framing of the charge was under challenge nor the court which passed the observations referred to above have quashed the charges already framed, but only expected that the charges should be recasted. In view of the observations which have been made by this court in Writ Petition No. 2744 of 2006, it appears that the MCOCA court wanted to reframe the charges. At that time, the application has been submitted by the petitioner that he should be heard under section 227 on the point of discharge. The court refused to hear the petitioner as provided under section : 3 : 227 and, therefore, the present petition has ben filed by the petitioner. 3. It has been observed by the MCOCA court in paragraph 6 that in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.2744 of 2006 dated 17th July, 2007 and subsequently in Criminal Appeals No.827 of 2007 and 830 of 2007, it is difficult to accept the contention of the accused that thereby the High Court has impliedly set aside the charges of his predecessor. It is further observed that such an inference can also not be drawn from the order passed by the MCOCA court on 30th May, 2008. 4. We find that the observations made by the MCOCA Court are proper. This court expected a suo motto exercise for reframing of the charges without giving directions to that effect and the order of framing of the charges was never struck down by this court. This has been rightly done by this court firstly because the said order was not challenged before this court and secondly at the time of framing of such charges, the petitioner was heard. What we find is that the MCOCA court has also rightly relied upon the judgment in the matter of Bharat Parikh vs. C.B.I. and Anr. Bharat Parikh vs. C.B.I. and Anr. Bharat Parikh vs. C.B.I. and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.1076 of 2008 decided on 14th July, : 4 : 2008 and refused to reverse the judicial process. Once the accused persons are heard under section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the charges are framed then again at the time of reframing of the charges or correcting the charges, the stage of section 227 is not available to the accused persons. 5. On perusal of the order, we are satisfied that rightly the matter has been disposed of by the MCOCA court. This Writ Petition is only filed to protract the trial and nothing more than that. We, accordingly, refrain to entertain the Writ Petition and it is, accordingly, rejected. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested for a stay of this order for a period of two weeks. The prayer is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [SMT. [SMT. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.] R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.] R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.] [S.B. MHASE, J.] [S.B. MHASE, J.] [S.B. MHASE, J.]