1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.275 OF 2011 (Waheda Khatun w/o. Zamir Khan .v. State and Ors.) ................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................ CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 2 1st July, 2011. Heard Mr.S.V.Sirpurkar, Adv. for the applicant, Mr.M.K.Pathan, A.P.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.Anil Mardikar, Adv. with Mr.A.B.Mirza, Adv. for respondent nos. 3 to 7. The A.P.P., under instructions, states that the Special Inspector General of Police, Amravati Range, Amravati being the competent Authority u/s.23(a) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (In short “The MCOC Act”) has granted prior approval to investigate into the offences punishable under the MCOC Act and the learned Special Judge presiding over the Special Court under the MCOC Act. Amravati is already intimated about the same. By this application, the applicant prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned order (undated, but, according to the learned Advocate for the applicant 2 the date is 27.4.2011) passed below Exh.114 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Akola in Sessions Trial No.95 of 2010 (arising from supplementary charge sheet in respect of Crime No.33 of 2010). It appears that the Counsel for the complainant through the Public Prosecutor, Akola had moved an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola with a prayer that the Sessions Trial No.95 of 2010 arising out of Crime No.33 of 2010 registered by Akot Fail, Police Station, Akola be stayed. The application was moved on the ground that, in respect of alleged offence punishable under the provisions of MCOC Act, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the case because appropriate action u/s. 23 (1) of the MCOC Act from the competent Authority was awaited to investigate into the accusations punishable under the MCOC Act. It further appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, due to confusion in the number of Sessions Trial mentioning Sessions Trial No.15 of 2010 instead of 95 of 2010, expressed that no proceedings before the MCOC Court was pending with reference to the Sessions Trial and there was no need to stay the proceedings. Thus, the application (Exh.114) was rejected. On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that Sessions Trial Nos.95 of 2010 and 146 of 2010 arose out 3 of the same Crime No.33 of 2010 in respect of alleged brutal murder of brother-in-law of the applicant on 10.4.2010 at about 7.30 A.M. which was reported to Akot Fail Police Station u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read further with Sections 3, 4, and 25 of the Arms Act. According to the applicant herein, the provisions of the MCOC Act are also applicable and on that ground, the applicant had filed a private complaint bearing No.49 of 2010 in the Court of Special Judge under the MCOC Act at Amravati. During pendency of the said proceedings, which is in respect of the same offence reported at Akot Fail Police Station, now the learned A.P.P. has stated that, prior approval u/s. 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act has been granted. That being so, it would be for the competent Investigating Officer to record information about commission of offence punishable under the MCOC Act and investigate the same. After completion of such investigation in respect of the offences punishable under the MCOC Act and with previous sanction of the competent Police Officer as required u/s. 23(2) of the MCOC Act, the Special Court shall take cognizance of the offences punishable under the MCOC Act. At the same time, it ought to be noted that, the Special Court under the MCOC Act at Amravati, while trying the offence punishable under the MCOC Act, 4 may also try any other offence with which the accused may have been charged pursuant to the proceedings of Criminal Procedure Code at the same trial if such offence is connected with the offence punishable under the MCOC Act. This is so in view of Section 7(1) of the MCOC Act. Under these circumstances, the Investigating Officer who is required to investigate the offences under the MCOC Act pursuant to prior approval granted u/s. 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act will have to take steps for production of accused before the Special Court seeking their remand etc. The accused who are in jail in connection with Sessions Trial No.95 of 2010 may have their remedy before the Special Court once they are produced before the Special Court in connection with the offences punishable under the MCOC Act. Since it is submitted that the Sessions Trial No.95 of 2010 along with Sessions Trial No.146 of 2010 now is pending in the Sessions Court, Akola is connected with the complaint proceedings bearing No.49 of 2010 pending in the Special Court under the MCOC Act at Amravati, the same may also be tried by the Special Court under the MCOC Act at Amravati in view of Section 7 (1) of the MCOC Act. That being so, the learned Special Judge presiding over the Special Court under the MCOC Act at Amravati can take necessary steps in accordance with law even in respect of the connected Sessions cases which can be tried along 5 with the case of which cognizance may be taken by the learned Special Judge. For all these reasons, there is no need to stay the proceedings in Sessions Trial Nos.95 of 2010 and 146 of 2010 as the competent Investigating Officer will have to take necessary steps in this regard. Interim stay is vacated. Consequently, the Criminal Application is rejected. The question as to whether to take cognizance or not in respect of the offence punishable under the MCOC Act is left open to the learned Special Judge presiding over the Special Court under the MCOC Act at Amravati. The application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE jais