1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.885 OF 2010 Sanjeet Krishna Shetty & Ors. .. Petitioners. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.S.R.Borulkar i/b M.K.Kocharekar for the petitioners. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2010. P.C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Mr Borulkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, invited our attention to the order dated 6.2.2010 passed under section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short, “MCOCA”) and submitted that in the present case no second chargesheet, to bring the offense within the sweep of section 2(d) of the MCOCA, which requires more than one charge sheet, has been filed against the organized crime syndicate of Kumar Krishna Pillai and Prasad Vithal Pujari and hence the sanction/approval order under section 23(2) is invalid and deserves to be set aside. In short, he submitted that the sanction/approval order is defective since the condition of second chargesheet against the organized crime S 2 syndicate has not been fulfilled in the present case. Mr Borulkar further submitted that an organized crime syndicate in the present case is known as the organized crime syndicate of Kumar Krishna Pillai and Prasad Vithal Pujari, and there is no second chargesheet against them together. He, therefore, submitted that the Special Court has no jurisdiction to try this case. Mr Borulkar did not raise any other contention. 3. There is no dispute that there are more than one chargesheets filed against both,i.e Kumar Krishna Pillai and Prasad Vithal Pujari independently. 4. Learned A.P.P informed the court that on 7.4.2010 the first witness was summoned by the Special Court for recording his evidence, and on that date the petitioners applied for adjournment on the ground that this petition was pending for admission. She then invited our attention to section 11 of the MCOC Act and submitted that all contentions urged in the present writ petition can be very well raised and considered by the Special Court at any stage in the course of trial and, therefore, this petition need not be entertained. 5. Section 11 empowers a Special Court to transfer the case for trial even after taking cognizance of the offense to any court having jurisdiction under the Code, if the Special Court is of the opinion that the offense is not triable by it. In view of this section and considering 3 that the case has reached the stage of trial we are not inclined to entertain and examine the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. It is open to the petitioners to raise similar contentions in the course of trial. It is now well settled that the question of validity of approval or defect in the order of approval or sanction cannot be decided at this stage unless the prosecution is afforded an opportunity to lead evidence in that regard and, therefore, accused has to wait to raise such objection at appropriate stage of the proceedings before the trial Court. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)