(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the order dated 6/12/2004 by the learned Special Judge under the MCOC Mumbai in MCOC Special Case No.4 of 2003. In said case the present respondent no.2 is complainant and the petitioner is the accused By the impugned order the learned Special Judge directed to issue process against the petitioner accused no.1 for the offences punishable Section 3(5) and Section 4 read with Section 24 the MCOC Act and also under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. passedAct, thetheno.1. has- underof
(2.) The respondent no.2 approached the Designated Court under the MCOC Act and filed a private complaint which came to be registered as Misc. Application No.255 of 2003 against five accused and he submitted a list of witnesses. On verification of the complaint two witnesses were examined by the learned Special Judge and at that stage the present petitioner approached this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.1755 of 2003 praying for quashing the proceedings initiated by the complainant before the Special Court and by then the complaint filed by the respondent no.2 came to be registered as MCOC Special Case No.4 of 2003. The said petition was summarily rejected by this Court on 17th December 2003. It was noted in the said order by this Court that accused nos.2 and 3 in MCOC Special Case No.4 of 2003 i.e. Dr.Mrinalini Patil and Shri R.C. Agarwal had already appeared before the Special Court by filing applications on the basis of some newspaper reports and some orders had been passed on the said applications. It was further noted that if the Court decided to issue an order of process, it was bound to take further steps as contemplated under the MCOC Act as well as other procedural law viz. the Criminal Procedure Code. In para 22 of the said order dated 17/12/2003 this Court observed as under:
(3.) On 8th March 2004 the learned Special Judge passed the following order: