ORDER : 1. These two petitions are filed by the State praying this Court to set aside the Order dated 01.02.2020 passed in S.C. No.91/2019 and S.C. No.78/2017 respectively on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, rejecting the applications filed by the prosecution and consequently allow the applications filed by the prosecution and pass such other order deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that, Mangaluru East [Kadri] Police have registered a case in Crime No.132/2015 against accused Nos.1 to 6 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 307, 395 r/w 149 of IPC. On completion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer has filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons and subsequently, the same is numbered as C.C. No.3466/2015. Later, the case is made over for disposal in accordance with law and the same is numbered as S.C. No.78/2017. Later the case is split up against accused No.2 [respondent in Crl.P. No.5048/2020] and numbered as C.C. No.129/2017 and committed to the District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru. C.C. No.129/2017 against accused No.2 also made over for disposal in accordance with law in S.C. No.91/2019. It is also the case of the prosecution that Udupi Town Police have also registered a case in Crime No.25/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 384, 387, 504, 506, 507, 109, 120B, 201 r/w. 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2020 [hereinafter referred to as ‘KCOC Act’ for short] and the said case is pending trial before the learned Special Judge in Mysuru as S.C. No.366/2019. In view of pendency of these 3 cases against the same accused, an application is filed by the prosecution before the Sessions Judge in S.C. No.91/2019 as well as S.C. No.78/2017, praying the Court on the ground that the KCOC Act is having precedence over the other case pending in view of Section 10 of the KCOC Act, wherein a provision is made that the Special Court shall have precedence over the trial of any other case against the accused in any other Court (not being a Special Court) and shall be concluded in preference to the trial of such other case and accordingly the trial of such other case shall remain in abeyance. Without considering the prayer of the prosecution, the trial Court has rejected the application and hence, these 2 petitions are filed against the said order. 3. Learned HCGP appearing for the State would submit that the main legislative intent to Section 10 of the KCOC Act is very much clear that the trial in any Special Court shall have precedence over the trial of any other case, against the accused in any other Court and until the trial is concluded in preference to such other case, the same shall remain in abeyance. Hence, the reading of the above provision is clear that the said provision is not a discretionary but is mandatory is not considered by the trial Court and without assigning any reasons, has rejected the applications. The order passed by the trial Court is passed against Section 10 of the KCOC Act and the very conclusion of the trial Court that Section 10 of the KCOC Act is not applicable in the present case is erroneous and it requires interference by this Court. 4. This Court has issued notice against the respondent in each case and none have appeared before this Court or engaged any counsel. Hence, heard the learned HCGP appearing for the petitioner/State and perused the records. 5. Having heard the learned HCGP for the petitioner/State and having perused the impugned orders, it is seen that the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the applications, made an observation that the trial has already been commenced in Special Case and already P.Ws.1 to 11 have been examined and only Police official witnesses have to be examined. It is also mentioned in paragraphs 12 and 14 of the said order that the materials on record clearly goes to show that the trial is pending before the Special Court in S.C. No.366/2019. Herein these cases, the trial is in the fag end. Among the charge-sheet witnesses, almost all the witnesses have been examined. If the Police Officers are examined, the trial get completed. It is also observed that all the 3 accused are in custody and preference has to be given to custody matters. It is also observed that in S.C. No.78/2017 also the accused persons are facing trial. It is also observed that it is not the case of the prosecution that the trial of these cases is in any way going to affect trial in S.C. No.366/2019. It is also observed that in S.C. No.78/2017 also the accused persons are facing trial. It is also observed that it is not the case of the prosecution that the trial of these cases is in any way going to affect trial in S.C. No.366/2019. It is also observed that when there is no physical production of the accused before the Court, there is no reason to presume any hindrance or hamper to the trial in S.C. No.366/2019. 6. Having considered the reasons assigned by the Sessions Court and also considering Section 10 of the KCOC Act, no doubt as per the provisions of Section 10 of the KCOC Act, Special Court shall have precedence over the trial of any other case against the accused in any other Court (not being a Special Court) and shall be concluded in preference to the trial of such other case and accordingly the trial of such other case shall remain in abeyance. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that the accused persons are in custody and also the records disclose that trial has already been commenced and almost all the witnesses have been examined except the Police official witnesses. It is rightly observed by the trial Court also that the trial has not yet commenced before the Special Court and when the matter is in the fag end, no question of keeping the matter in abeyance. When the trial has almost completed and the fact that the accused persons are in custody has not been disputed, if these matters are kept in abeyance as contended by the prosecution, again affect the persons who are in custody and the prosecution has also not disputed the fact that the accused persons are in custody and also the Special Court has given the reason that the trial which has already been commenced before the trial Court will not come in the way of trial to be commenced in the Special Court. No doubt the Special Court shall have precedence that does not mean that the accused persons have to be continued in custody till conclusion of the Special Court trial which has not yet been commenced and when the case is already been in the fag end, the trial Court has to consider the material available on record and dispose of the matter on merits. I do not find any error committed by the Special Court in dismissing the applications and while rejecting the applications, reasons are assigned in paragraphs 12 and 14 which has been discussed earlier. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned HCGP appearing for the petitioner/State to set aside the order of the Special Court and to allow the application filed by the prosecution under Section 10 of the KCOC Act. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER Petitions are rejected. I.A. No.1/2020 filed for stay in Crl.P. No.5048/2020 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of accordingly.