1 APEAL.442-2009 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2009 Anil Umrao Gote ...Appellant. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. ...Respondents. ---- Mr. P.M. Pradhan, for the Appellant. Mr. R.B. Thakare, and Mr. A.M. Chimalkar, for Respondent No.1. Mrs. A.S. Pai, APP for the State. --- CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. FEBRUARY 04, 2011. P.C.:- We have heard Mr. Pradhan, the learned counsel for the appellant. 2 In this appeal filed under Section 12 of MCOC Act, 1999, the appellant takes exception to the order dated 4.4.2009 read with note of explanation dated 4.4.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge under the M.C.O.C. Act at Pune for altering or reframing the charges by invoking his powers under Section 216 of Cr. P.C. and pursuant to the directions given by this court. 2 APEAL.442-2009 3 The appellant is accused no.45 in MCOC Special Case No.2 of 2003 filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation and in the said case, on 26.6.2007 the trial court framed the charges against 61 accused out of whch 43 accused pleaded guilty and therefore, the trial court recorded their guilt and convicted them. Writ Petition No.2744 of 2006 came to be filed before this court and the Division Bench of this court by its order dated 17.7.2007 was pleased to direct the Special Court to take up suo motu the matter for re-framing of the charges against the accused, and therefore, on 6.8.2007, the trial court passed an order declaring its intention to re-frame the charges against all the accused in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this court. The order dated 6.8.2007 passed by the Special Court came to be challenged in Criminal Appeal No.827 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal No.830 of 2007. Criminal Appeal No.827 of 2007 was filed by the present appellant. Both these appeals were heard and disposed off by the Division Bench on 4.10.2007. The Division Bench held that the Special Court has powers to re-frame or alter the charges but unless it sets out the reasons pointing out the errors/defects in the earlier charges framed, fresh exercise of re-framing or altering the charges should not be taken up. 3 APEAL.442-2009 4 Consequent to the said order passed by the Division Bench, the C.B.I. filed an application at Exh.1994 on 22.1.2008 before the Special Court praying for re-framing all the charges and on the same day the learned Judge re-framed the charge against accused no.45. On 10.4.2008, the present appellant filed an application at Exh.2040 rasing the grievance that prosecution conducting a trial in contravention of the directions and orders passed by the this court in Criminal Appeal No.827 of 2007. The learned Special Court heard both these applications and passed its order dated 11.4.2008 on the application at Exh.2040 and disposed off the same. On 3.5.2008, the learned Special Judge passed his order on the application at Exh.1994 and recorded a details reasons pointing out errors/defects in the charges framed on 26.7.2007 and modified on 28.6.2007. This order dated 3.5.2008 came to be challenged by the present appellant in Writ Petition No.1222 of 2008 which came to be rejected summarily by the Division Bench of this court. It was observed in the said order that the learned Special Judge had set out the reasons for re-framing charges and so far as the petitioner is concerned he would be at liberty to raise the challenge when the charges would be re-framed and if he be aggrieved. Consequently by the impugned order dated 13.4.2009 along with 4 APEAL.442-2009 explanatory note dated 4.4.2009, the learned Special Judge has re-framed charges against the present appellant i.e. charges nos.32 to 36. 5 It is also pertinent to note at this stage that this very same order of re-framing of charges was a subject matter of challenge before us in Criminal Writ Petition No.2107 of 2009 filed by accused no.53 Shri Chenna Yadav and the Petition was dismissed on 22.6.2010. At the same, the appellant has challenged the interlocutory orders by filing a Writ Petition or an appeal under Section 12 of the M.C.O.C. Act. We are deciding this appeal on merits and without going into the issue of its maintainability. 6 The order passed on 26.6.2008 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1222 of 2008 and order in Criminal Writ Petition No.2107 of 2009 passed on 22.6.2010 have reached finality. The learned Special Judge had gone through the order passed by this court on 4.10.2007 and pursuant to the said order he has set out its reasons pointing out the errors/defects in the earlier charges framed and proceeded to re-frame the charges. The power to alter or re-frame the charges is not in dispute in this case, and what is contended before us is that the Special court has exceeded its limit. Whether the charges framed are supported by any material on record is required to be decided in the trial and in the procedure followed by the 5 APEAL.442-2009 learned Special Judge to alter or re-frame the charges we do not find any error, and hence this appeal must fail. Hence the appeal is dismissed in limine. (U. D. SALVI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.)