<p>Mumbai: Jailed gangster Uday Pathak, facing trial in nine criminal cases, has told a special court in Mumbai he was wrongly prosecuted for being a "non-Maharashtrian", at the instance of political parties and sought that the ongoing legal proceedings against him be kept in abeyance.</p>.<p>However, special judge for cases under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MACOCA), B D Shelke, rejected his plea on Monday, saying "it was not tenable in the eyes of law".</p>.<p>Pathak, in his application, claimed that in order to put pressure on him, a false case under the stringent MCOCA has been registered against him.</p>.Man's arrest despite having paid electricity charges 'unwarranted': Bombay High Court; orders compensation.<p>The gangster alleged he has been falsely implicated in several other cases and hence the trial against him is required to be kept in abeyance.</p>.<p>Pathak is facing trial in as many as nine cases, one of which is related to the murder of four persons in 2011 in Mumbai's Malad area.</p>.<p>The accused, in the plea, claimed he has not committed any illegal acts, but has been "prosecuted wrongly for being a non-Maharashtrian, at the instance of political parties and higher police officials." He did not name any political party or official.</p>.<p>The accused, who has been in jail for the last 12 years, further contended that the prosecution was delaying his trial.</p>.<p>Countering his claims, the prosecution submitted that Pathak's application was "bad in law, not maintainable" and hence appropriate order may be passed by the court.</p>.<p>The court, after hearing both sides, said that contentions raised by the accused in respect of his alleged harassment are not relevant for consideration while deciding this application.</p>.<p>Similarly, his contentions in respect of implicating him for being a "non-Maharashtrian" and at the instance of political parties are not relevant, the court noted.</p>.<p>"This court comes to the conclusion that the application filed by applicant/accused is not tenable in the eyes of law before this court," the special judge observed, while rejecting his plea.</p>
<p>Mumbai: Jailed gangster Uday Pathak, facing trial in nine criminal cases, has told a special court in Mumbai he was wrongly prosecuted for being a "non-Maharashtrian", at the instance of political parties and sought that the ongoing legal proceedings against him be kept in abeyance.</p>.<p>However, special judge for cases under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MACOCA), B D Shelke, rejected his plea on Monday, saying "it was not tenable in the eyes of law".</p>.<p>Pathak, in his application, claimed that in order to put pressure on him, a false case under the stringent MCOCA has been registered against him.</p>.Man's arrest despite having paid electricity charges 'unwarranted': Bombay High Court; orders compensation.<p>The gangster alleged he has been falsely implicated in several other cases and hence the trial against him is required to be kept in abeyance.</p>.<p>Pathak is facing trial in as many as nine cases, one of which is related to the murder of four persons in 2011 in Mumbai's Malad area.</p>.<p>The accused, in the plea, claimed he has not committed any illegal acts, but has been "prosecuted wrongly for being a non-Maharashtrian, at the instance of political parties and higher police officials." He did not name any political party or official.</p>.<p>The accused, who has been in jail for the last 12 years, further contended that the prosecution was delaying his trial.</p>.<p>Countering his claims, the prosecution submitted that Pathak's application was "bad in law, not maintainable" and hence appropriate order may be passed by the court.</p>.<p>The court, after hearing both sides, said that contentions raised by the accused in respect of his alleged harassment are not relevant for consideration while deciding this application.</p>.<p>Similarly, his contentions in respect of implicating him for being a "non-Maharashtrian" and at the instance of political parties are not relevant, the court noted.</p>.<p>"This court comes to the conclusion that the application filed by applicant/accused is not tenable in the eyes of law before this court," the special judge observed, while rejecting his plea.</p>