1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1424 OF 2006 Shahid Abdul Karim Telgi & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1425 OF 2006 AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1426 OF 2006 Abdul Karim Ladsaab Telgi ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.I.C.Kadav & V.B.Koshe for the Petitioners Mr. Raja Thakare with Mr. A.M. Chimalkar for C.B.I. Mrs. U.V.Kejriwal, A.P.P for the State CORAM: SHRI J.N.PATEL & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 P.C. 1. All the matters were listed for admission time and again, but it appears that the Petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the Petition. In all three Petitioners the main grievance of the Petitioners appears that they had been remanded to judicial custody by the learned Judge who was 2 not vested with the powers of Special Judge under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 ( for short MCOCA). The Petitioners are in judicial custody pending trial. It appears from the pleadings that while this Special Judge was on leave their remand was granted by the Incharge Judge of the Special Court. The Petitioners have mainly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Tamilnadu Va. Parmasiv Pandian reported in A.I.R. 2001, S.C. 2972 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed that : “ The Special Court constituted for trial of cases under the Act which had the exclusive power to pass an order of remand could not do so since the Esential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act under which the Special Court was established had lapsed. Therefore, the remand order passed by the Special Court at Madurai long after it had ceased to exercise the jurisdiction in cases under the Essential Commodities Act.” 2. It is therefore, submitted that as the remand order was not passed by the Courts vested with the powers under MCOCA, their further detention in custody is illegal and therefore, they deserve to be set at liberty by way of discharge or grant of bail. 3. Mr. Raja Thakare, the learned Special P.P for C.B.I 3 submitted that the remand orders came to be passed by incharge Judge of the Special Court as Special Judge who has taken cognizance of the matter was on leave and that there is nothing illegal in the matter, and that similar petition came to be filed by one Abdul Rasheed Sikandarsab Kulkarni, it was Criminal Writ Petition No.1306 of 2006 along with other connected matters in which the Division Bench of this Court on 6th July, 2006 considered similar issue and have held that the order passed by the Judge of the same rank being incharge of the Special Court in view of the decision in Gokaraju Rangaraju Vs. State of Andhrapradesh (1981) 3 SC Cases, 132 it has been held that the act of Officer deciding the matters and that the said decision has been followed by the Supreme Court Cases in Pushpadevi M. Jatia Vs. M.L. Wadhawan, reported in (1987) 3 SCC 367 . 4. Our attention has also been drawn to another decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State Vs. N.M.T. Joy Immanculate (2004) Cri. L.J. 2515 “Section 167, Cr.P.C empowers a Judicial Magistrate to authorise the detention of an accused in the custody of police. Section 209 Cr.P.C. confers power upon a Magistrate to remand an accused to custody until the case has been committed to the Court of 4 Sessions and also until the conclusion of the trial. Section 309 Cr.P.C. Confers power upon a Court to remand an accused to custody after taking cognizance of an offence or during commencement of trial when it finds it necessary to adjourn the enquiry or trial. The order of remand has no bearing on the proceedings of the trial itself nor it can have any effect on the ultimate decision of the case. If an order of remand is found to be illegal, it cannot result in acquittal of the accused or in termination of proceedings. A remand order cannot affect the progress of the trial or its decision in any manner. It cannot be categorised even as an 'intermediate order'. The order is, therefore, a pure and simple interlocutory order and in view of the bar created by sub- section (2) of S. 397 Cr.P.C a revision against the said order is not maintainable.” 5. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the Petitioners cannot claim the relief as sought for merely because incharge Judge of the Special Court constituted under the MCOCA as during the period while the Special Judge was on leave passed further orders of remand. Therefore, all the three Petitions stand dismissed. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (SHRI. J.N. PATEL, J.) 5