1 CriA-577-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 577 OF 2010 Harish Rama Mandvikar ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents S/Shri Nitin Pradhan i/b. S.D.Nangre, R.M.Pawar & S.P.Nangre, Advocates, for the applicant. Shri A.H.H.Ponda, Advocate, for the applicant in Cri. Application No.406/2010. Shri Ajay S.Gadkari, APP, for respndent No.1 - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 29th July, 2010. P.C. 1. After discussion at length and after perusal of the several authorities, the learned Counsel for both the sides concede that in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 where, after taking cognizance of the offence, the Special Court is of the opinion that the offence committed is not triable by it, such court shall transfer the case for trial of such offence to any court having jurisdiction under the Code and the Court to which the case is transferred may proceed with the trial of the offence as if it had taken cognizance of the offence and therefore, when in this case the Special Judge came to the conclusion that the provision of the MCOC Act would not be 2 CriA-577-10.sxw applicable, he was competent to transfer the matter for the trial of the case to the Sessions Court and it was not necessary to transfer the case to the concerned Magistrate for following committal procedure. It appears that while passing the order dated 24.4.2009, by which the learned Sessions Judge held that the case does not fall under MCOC Act, he directed the case to be transferred to the Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. The learned Counsel for the applicant-accused contends that the case should have been transferred to Sessions Cort at Alibag, Dist. Raigad and not to the Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay as the alleged offence of murder was committed in the District of Raigad. 2. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that even though the learned Special Judge had remarked that because of the conspiracy hatched in Mumbai, the Sessions Court at Mumbai has got jurisdiction and with these observations, he transferred the matter to the Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, this question was not argued at length on the facts and merits. According to him, the matter needs to be heard and decided. 3. After some discussion, the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the Application with liberty to take the issue of jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Raigad or the Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay before the Special Judge 3 CriA-577-10.sxw again to which the learned APP has no objection. 4. Therefore, the present Application is disposed of as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty. 5. The learned Special Judge shall re-hear the parties on the point as to whether the jurisdiction to try the case would be with Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay or the Sessions Judge, Raigad and shall pass order on its own merits without being influenced by observations in para 20 of his earlier order dated 24.4.2009. 6. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)