RAHUL SANJAY SHINGADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Applications No.787 of 2019 and No.3722 of 2018 have been filed by the respective applicants - original accused for suspension of sentence and releasing them on bail pending appeal. All the appellants faced trial in Special (MCOC) Case No.03 of 2015 before Special Judge, Nasik. At the conclusion of the trial all the three accused persons have been convicted and following order has been passed :

(2.) Out of the three accused persons two accused persons have preferred the bail application with suspension of sentence.

(3.) At the outset it will have to be stated that, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised objection in respect of jurisdiction of this Court. It has been submitted that, though the offence was registered with Shirdi Police Station District Ahmednagar, the learned Special Judge, Nasik is the designated Court under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as "MCOC Act" for the sake of brevity) for Ahmednagar District, therefore he tried the case and delivered the Judgment. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1960" for the sake of brevity), and submitted that, the presentation of the matters i.e. appeals, applications, references and petitions including the petitions for exercise of powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is governed as per they are arising in the judicial districts. Therefore, when the present appeals are arising out of judicial district of Nasik i.e. in view of pronouncement of judgment by Special Judge, Nasik which is not included in Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals as well as the applications. The appeals with applications may be presented before the Principal Seat at Bombay which has jurisdiction over the judicial district of Nasik. He placed reliance on the decision in, Haji Abdul Razak Yasim Patel v. Bara Imam Masjid Trust and others, reported in [2006 (1) Mh.L.J. 184]. It was observed in this case by the learned Single Judge at Principal (Shri. S. A. Bobade, J.) Seat that, "Writ petitions were filed to challenge an order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune who had refused permission to Trust to alienate certain immovable properties. Wherever the property may be located, the parties would be entitled to approach the Principal Seat or the Bench of Court within whose ordinary territorial limits the impugned order has been passed, since clearly the impugned order would be a material part of the cause of action. As observed earlier, the locus of the properties would not, in such a case, determine the jurisdiction since the properties in respect of which the trust seeks permission to alienate may be located at several places within Maharashtra."