ARUN NAMDEO GHORPADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Admit. By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the order dtd. 8/6/2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (under the MCOC Act), Nashik, below Exhibit 365 in Special (MCOC) Case No. 1 of 2016 and consequently, the order framing charge dtd. 8/6/2022, passed by the Special Judge (MCOC Act) Nashik below Exhibit 372, on the very same day.

(3.) The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order passed in the discharge application filed by the appellant is not a reasoned order and that the learned Judge has not considered the submissions advanced by the appellant's Advocate in support of his discharge. He further submits that without giving an opportunity to the appellant to challenge the order of discharge, the trial court immediately proceeded to frame charges against the appellant and other co-accused on the very same day, soon after rejecting the appellants discharge application (Exhibit 372) by an order which can hardly be said to be a speaking order. He submits by the said action, the provision of Sec. 227 seeking discharge is rendered otiose, by the learned Judge.