Appeal under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (M.C.O.C. Act), challenging the application of its provisions to two appellants accused in a criminal case. The appellants sought to drop charges under the M.C.O.C. Act and transfer the case to a different court, arguing they were falsely implicated due to business rivalry. The prosecution contended that the appellants were actively involved in a crime committed by an Organised Crime Syndicate, headed by another accused. The appeal was dismissed based on sufficient evidence indicating the appellants' involvement, as per the decision of the trial court.

1. Background and Appeal Initiation:

   • Appellants challenged an order rejecting their plea to drop M.C.O.C. Act charges.
   • They sought transfer of the case to a different court under Section 11 of the M.C.O.C. Act.

2. Arguments of Appellants:

   • Appellants argued against the application of M.C.O.C. Act provisions, claiming they were not actively involved in the crime.
   • Alleged false implication due to business rivalry and absence of pecuniary gain.

3. Prosecution's Counter:

   • Prosecution asserted the appellants' active participation in a crime committed by an Organised Crime Syndicate.
   • Mentioned prior criminal activities of the syndicate and sanction under M.C.O.C. Act for the present case.

4. Factual Basis and Evidence:

   • Incident involved assault and threats against a family related to a business dispute.
   • CCTV footage and witness statements supported the appellants' presence and involvement in the crime.

5. Legal Arguments:

   • Interpretation of M.C.O.C. Act provisions and the requirement of prior criminal charges against the syndicate, not each member individually.

6. Court's Decision:

   • Court dismissed the appeal, citing sufficient evidence of appellants' involvement.
   • Upheld trial court's decision not to drop M.C.O.C. Act charges, finding no error in its application of law.