Delhi District Court
State vs . Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi ... on 3 May, 2012
FIR No. : 66/2009 P.S. : Special Cell State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi etc. U/s : 3 MCOC Act 03.05.2012 ORDER ON CHARGE 1.
The prosecution case is based upon the facts that a case was registered against the accused persons on the basis of their unlawful and criminal activities which were being run by accused Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi and his associates, singly as well as jointly as a syndicate. On 16.09.09, an intercepted conversation between two mobile numbers revealed a conspiracy to extort money from a businessman of Delhi, namely Ashok Tebriwal having mobile number 9811040294. Further information revealed that users of intercepted mobile numbers were Miraj and Babloo @ Iftikar both of whom were associates of Munna Bajrangi. In this regard, a case bearing FIR No. 63/09 dated 21.10.2009, U/S 120B r/w 387 IPC, PS Special Cell, New Delhi was registered. Accused Prem Prakash singh @ Munna Bajrangi, who made extortion call to Ashok Tebriwal and demanded Rs. 1 Crore And his associate Mahendra Ayare @ Shetty were arrested on 29.10.09. During the course of further investigation, accused Miraj Khan and Iftikar @ Babloo were also arrested in this case. Further investigation in the activities of accused Prem Prakash Singh and his associates revealed that he was an interstate FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 1/59 criminal known for his high profile contract killings. He along with his men have shot dead many traders of North India, who refused to meet his extortion demands and he has gone on to extort money from traders with impunity. He was wanted in the murder cases in U.P. and was continuously extorting money from the affluent businessmen of North India and due to his terror, the victims/witnesses don't come forward and complain or depose or provide any information against him. It was stated that at least 17 criminal cases of serious and heinous cognizable offences were registered against accused Prem Prakash Singh. The criminal activities of accused Munna Bajrangi @ Prem Prakash Singh for the last 20 years have been narrated further in the charge sheet filed before the court. Further according to the case of prosecution, accused Prem Prakash singh @ Munna Bajrangi came in contact of accused Mukhtar Ansari and both of them started working jointly and also started collecting protection money from local dealers, contractors and affluent Businessmen etc. As stated in the year 1998, Munna Bajrangi was arrested for the first time in Delhi in FIR no. 686/98 dated 1191998, u/s 186/353/332/307/34 IPC 27 Arms Act PS Samaipur Badli, Delhi. He was released on bail in the year 2002 but he jumped bail and thereafter continued extortion and indulged in contract killing. He shifted his base to Mumbai through contacts of Mukhtar Ansari and he and his associates are indulging in organized crime using threat of violence/intimidation & coercion for pecuniary benefits. It is also stated that on 29.11.2005, accused Prem Prakash Singh FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 2/59 @ Munna Bajrangi along with his associates, in conspiracy with Mukhtar Ansari, killed Krishnanand Rai, an MLA from Mohammadabad constituency in Ghazipur district alongwith his gun man and supporters near his village Goundour using highly sophisticated weapons where accused Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi has been charge sheeted alongwith accused Mukhtar Ansari and other persons. During last ten years, accused Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi, as sated, was found involved in 5 cases of murder, extortion, Gunda Act, etc. in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. It is stated that the facts which have emerged regarding criminal activities of Prem Prakash singh @ Munna Bajrangi shows that he has been running an organized crime syndicate of extortion alongwith his associates. He has been actively indulging in continuing unlawful activity for more than last two decade. He has a wide spread interstate organized crime syndicate in Delhi, as also in Maharashtra, Gujrat, Uttar Pradesh and other states. He has been committing organized crime with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits and other advantages for him and the members of his organized crime syndicate by using violence, threat of violence, intimidation, coercion, and other unlawful means. The Syndicate has accumulated a huge amount of money/wealth by their continuing unlawful activities. After the requisite approval under the provisions of MCOCA u/s 23 (1) , the case u/s 3 of MCOC Act was registered and during investigation, on 08/11/09, accused Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi who was already in FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 3/59 custody in case FIR No. 63/09 u/s 120B/387 IPC PS Special Cell, was interrogated followed by the interrogation of accused Miraj & Ifthikar Ahmad @ Babloo. The statements of victims of extortion were also recorded. All the witnesses namely Ajay Jain, Hemant Dass, Anand Tiwari, Shailesh Asthana, Ram Pal Singh, Santosh Jaiswal and many others stated about the extortion calls received from accused Munna Bajrangi, Mukhtar Ansari and their associates including accused Miraj Ahmed and Iftikar Ahmed @ Babloo. It was also stated that though they had been receiving the extortion and threat calls but due to fear of the accused persons, they did not lodge any complaint whereas some of the witnesses namely Guru Prasad Seth, Ashish Kumar Sahu and Naresh Kumar Gupta had lodged the complaint in FIR no. 111/02, 57/02, and 104/96 against the accused persons and their associates. It is stated that from the statements of the witnesses recorded, it is clear that all the accused persons have been working as a syndicate and extorting money in the name of protection by threatening to kill affluent business and coal dealers. The details of the ITRs filed by accused persons were obtained and it is stated that the expenses being incurred by the accused persons or the investments made by the accused persons were much more than their known source of income besides the fact that accused persons could not provide any detail of their known source of income. During the investigation, the call details of the witnesses and the mobile numbers used by accused Munna Bajrangi and his associates were also analyzed to FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 4/59 show the involvement of the accused persons in making the extortion calls. It is stated that the statements of witnesses, analysis of call details, documents collected from school, Bank, Income Tax Department, previous criminal record, other relevant documents and circumstances are sufficient to show on record with respect to the involvement of accused persons in continuing unlawful activities for running organized crime syndicate of extortion and murder particularly against accused Munna Bajrangi whereas the sufficient material as stated is on record against accused Miraz Ahmed and Iftikar Ahmed u/s 3(2) MCOC Act for conspiring, abetting and knowingly facilitating the commission of organized crime for pecuniary gains. With respect to accused Mukhtar Ansari, subsequently the supplementary charge sheet was filed and it was stated that the investigation in the case FIR no. 66/09 revealed that accused Mukhtar Ansari is also an associate of Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi who were indulging in organized crime using threat of violence /intimidation for pecuniary benefits. List of cases where accused Mukhtar Ansari was involved was placed on record which shows the involvement of accused Mukhtar Ansari in 37 cases w.e.f. 1988 to 2009. It is stated that accused Mukhtar Ansari was also involved in FIR no. 589/05 alongwith accused Prem Prakash Singh in which case BJP MLA Sh. Krishnanand Rai was killed alongwith his gun man to facilitate and establish the hold of supremacy of Afzal Ansari, brother of accused Mukhtar Ansari in his constituency. It is also stated that the involvement FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 5/59 of accused Mukhtar Ansari in this case clearly indicates that he has accumulated a huge wealth by continuing his unlawful activities. All the offences belong to the category where the violence was used and in many cases it was for the purpose of pecuniary benefits. The propensity of wealth of accused Mukhtar Ansari as stated was much more than his revelations before elections commission who was a sitting MLA.
2. Ld. Counsel for defence addressed their arguments mainly on the following points. :
1. That the order u/s 23 (1) MCOCA dated 7.11.2009, order under section 23 (2) MCOCA dated 26.4.2010 as well as order u/s 23 (2) MCOCA dated 2.11.2010 are the result of non application of mind and the ingredients of MCOCA are absent while grant of sanction/approval in this respect.
2. No cognizance was taken by the competent court of law in FIR no. 63/09 which is the epic centre for invocation of MCOCA against the accused persons.
3. There is no iota of evidence to suggest that accused persons are the members of any syndicate and that syndicate is working for pecuniary benefits and they are indulging in organized crime either singly or jointly
4. As per the notification dated 2.1.2002 whereby MCOCA was extended to NCT of Delhi and any offence committed beyond the jurisdiction of NCT of Delhi, does not come within the FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 6/59 territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. The special law cannot override or supersede the constitution of India which provides protection to the citizens of the country against double jeopardy whereby no person should be prosecuted twice for the same offence.
5. Case of the prosecution is also hit by section 10 & 25 of MCOCA and section 12 and 20 of UP Gangsters Act.
6. The preconditions of section 2 (1) (d) and section 2 (1) (e) MCOCA before invoking the provisions of MCOCA against the accused persons are not fulfilled in the instant matter.
3. While elaborating the above points, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for defence that taking cognizance is the act which the designated court has to perform and grant of sanction is an act which the sanctioning authority has to perform. Thus, valid sanction is sine qua non for enabling the prosecution agency to approach the court concerned to enable the court to take cognizance of the offence under MCOC Act. The corollary is that if there was no valid sanction, the designated court gets no jurisdiction to try a case against any person mentioned in the report as the court is forbidden from taking cognizance for the offence without such sanction.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Special PP for state placed reliance upon Kalpnath Rai Vs. State AIR 1998 SC 201 in support of his argument that there was no defect in the approval u/s 23 (1) MCOCA wherein it was observed that " There is nothing in sec. 20 (A) of TADA to FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 7/59 indicate that prior approval of the District Superintendent of police should be in writing. What is necessary is the fact of approval which is sine qua non for recording the information about the commission of the offence under TADA. The provision is intended to operate as a check against police officials of lower ranks commencing investigation into offences under TADA because of the serious consequences which such action befalls the accused. However, the check can effectively be exercised if a superior police official of the rank of DSP first considers the need and feasibility of it. His approval can be obtained even orally if such an exigency arises in a particular situation. So oral approval by itself is not illegal and would not vitiate the further proceedings ". It was stated that the present case is on better footing since it is clearly mentioned that prior approval of authority had been obtained before registration of the case and the approval contains the fact that the competent authority granted approval after going through the proposal where the facts of case FIR no. 63/09 , P.S. Special Cell were specifically mentioned.
5. On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for defence that the abovesaid judgment is not applicable on the facts of the instant case as the same is pertaining to scope of jurisdiction of courts after a valid sanction has been issued but in the present case, the investigating agency failed to get the valid sanction as the cases referred at the time of seeking sanction are of jurisdiction of UP and none of the FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 8/59 cases is pertaining to Delhi. Furthermore the investigating agency failed to provide any case in the entire report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. in which all the four accused persons have worked collectively under an organized crime syndicate, for pecuniary benefits and to achieve the said purpose had used violence, threat of violence, intimidation etc. Further it was submitted that the judgment is regarding the appeal against conviction in TADA and the role and involvement of accused persons is discussed in support of the evidence adduced by the prosecution during the trial. Whereas the present case is at the initial stage of framing of charge and the court at this stage has only to look at the material placed by the investigating agency on record, whether, the same is sufficient to invoke the charges of MCOCA against the accused persons or not.
6. It was argued that as per the approval u/s 23 (1) of MCOCA, the same was accorded by Joint CP after going through the proposal and it was revealed to the joint CP that during the last 10 years, accused Prem Prakash @ Munna Bajrangi was found involved in 3 cases of murder/extortion/Gunda Act in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. During this period, accused Prem Prakash Singh individually and his associates used violence/threat of violence and intimidation, coercion and other such unlawful means to gain pecuniary benefits and advantages for themselves and hence indulged in organized crime. It was pointed out that the three cases which were mentioned were registered against accused Prem Prakash to show his involvement in continuing unlawful activities to gain FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 9/59 pecuniary benefits and other advantages with violence/threat of violence, intimidation, coercion etc i.e. FIR no. 57/2002 u/s 307/302/506/120B IPC, sec. 3 (1) U.P. Gangester Act, P.S. Dashwamedh, Varanasi, U.P., FIR no. 111/2002 U/s 302120B IPC, P.S. Chaitgang , Varanasi , U.P. and FIR no. 589/2005 U/s 147/148/149/302/307/404/120B IPC, sec. 25 Arms Act and sec. 7 CLA At, P.S. Bhanwalkol, Gazipur, U.P. It was submitted that MCOCA was invoked against the accused persons as they were found involved in FIR no. 63/09 but surprisingly FIR no. 63/09 was not mentioned in the order u/s 23 (1) MCOCA dated 7.11.2009 and even in the said order there is no whisper regarding the discussion of said FIR no. 63/09, whereas the FIRs which have been mentioned in the order u/s 23 (1) MCOCA cannot be the subject matter in which the MCOCA can be invoked. Similarly order u/s 23 (2) MCOCA with respect to grant of sanction for prosecution of the accused persons as argued is the result of non application of mind since not even a single case was discussed, referred or mentioned in order u/s 23 (2) MCOCA dated 26.4.2010 which order is totally silent regarding the involvement of accused persons and there was also no discussion regarding the earlier charge sheets or cognizance taken by the court of law. It was further submitted that as per the sanction u/s 23 (2) MCOCA, the joint CP had carefully gone through the case file submitted by ACP and had perused the statement of witnesses and documents and also the overall facts and circumstances of the case but no cognizance of FIR no. 63/09 was ever placed, considerer , FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 10/59 discussed by the Joint CP while according sanction u/s 23 (2) MCOCA which fact is evident from the judicial file that no order of taking the cognizance of the offences mentioned in FIR no. 63/09, u/s 387/120B IPC by the competent court of law having its jurisdiction filed on record and the law is very much clear that no court shall frame the charges on the basis of assumption and presumption or because the prosecuting agency is saying so that the cognizance was taken by the competent court in a particular FIR which FIR is the result of organized crime syndicate in the absence of any documentary proof placed by the investigating agency at the time of either obtaining the sanction for prosecution u/s 23 (2) MCOCA or at the time of filing the final report/charge sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C.. It was also submitted that the prosecution failed to show/prove prima faice that cognizance was taken by the competent court in FIR no.
63/2009 and hence the sanction thus accorded by Joint CP is not maintainable and the charge could not be framed on the basis of such FIR.
7. It is correct that in the order u/s 23 (1) MCOCA there is reference to only three cases pertaining to FIR no. 57/02, FIR no. 111/2002, FIR no. 589/05, however there is specific reference in the abovesaid order regarding the involvement of accused with respect to the offence committed in Delhi and U.P.. Albeit the fact remains that the proposal which was put up before the competent authority for grant of approval u/s 23 (1) MCOCA for registration of the case under MCOCA FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 11/59 includes the mention of registration of FIR no. 63/09 as well as the factum that the intercepted conversation between two mobile numbers revealed the conspiracy of extortion of money from the businessman of Delhi namely Ashok Tebriwal. I agree with the contention of Ld. Special PP for state that the specific reference has been made to only those cases where the charge sheets had already been filed and there was no specific reference of FIR no. 63/09 since the charge sheet in that matter had not been filed by then. Similarly with respect to the grant of snaction u/s 23 (2), the contention of Ld. Counsel for defence is right to the extent that there is no reference of any case inwhich the accused persons have been charge sheeted or the competent court has taken the cognizance . But this fact also cannot be lost sight that in the opening line of the order itself, there is mention of submission of report alongwith case file of case FIR no. 66/09 which was registered u/s 3 MCOC Act. The FIR no. 66/09 itself is based upon the case arising out of FIR no. 63/09 dated 21.10.2009. The FIR no. 66/09 also contains reference with respect to intercepted conversation between the mobile numbers which revealed the conspiracy for extortion of the money by the accused persons as well as the details of all the cases where the accused persons were found involved including the FIR no. 63/09 which was registered at Delhi . Though it is also correct that in the sanction order dated 26.4.2010 there is no specific reference with respect to the cognizance having been taken in case registered in FIR no. 63/09, however the fact remains that the FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 12/59 cognizance in the case arising out of FIR no. 63/09 had been taken by the competent court prior to the passing of order u/s 23 (2) MCOCA. The contention of Ld. Counsel for defence was there is no document on record to show with respect to the cognizance having been taken by the competent court with respect to FIR no. 63/09, and the court cannot frame charge on the basis of assumption and presumption or because the prosecuting agency is saying so that the cognizance was taken by the competent court in the particular FIR. It is the matter of record that the said FIR i.e. FIR no. 63/09 had been registered based upon which only, subsequently FIR no. 66/09 was registered and the provisions of MCOCA were invoked against the accused persons. Charge sheet of said case is also on record. It is also the matter of record that the cognizance had also been taken by the competent court in the case arising out of FIR no. 63/09 and as per the own case of accused persons as well, they have been acquitted in said case which had arisen out of FIR no. 63/09. Had the cognizance not been taken in the said case, there was no reason or occasion for the acquittal of accused persons from the said case, therefore it cannot be said that it is merely the assumption or presumption of the prosecuting agency that the cognizance had been taken against the accused persons in case arising out of FIR no. 63/09.
8. It was pointed out by Ld. Special PP for state that the statements of witnesses which had been recorded during the investigation of FIR no. 66/09 were also put up before the competent authority besides FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 13/59 reference to FIR no. 63/09. To support his argument that sanctioning authority had applied its mind, Ld. Special PP for state placed reliance upon State of Tamilnadu Vs. Damodaran AIR 1992 SC 563, wherein it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that " we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in reaching the conclusion that the sanctioning authority granted sanction mechanically and without application of mind. The statement of witnesses recorded under section 162, criminal procedure code were reproduced in detail in the letter dated April 25, 1979. We are satisfied that all the relevant material was before the sanctioning authority and he granted sanction after fully applying his mind. We see no infirmity in the order granting the sanction. We, therefore, allow, the appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court and restore that of the trial court.
Further in State of Karnataka Vs. Amir Jaan 2008 Crl. L.J. 347, it was observed that " For the aforementioned purpose, indisputably, application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority is imperative. The order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority .We have noticed hereinbefore that the sanctioning authority had purported to pass the order of sanction solely on the basis of the report made by Inspector General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha. Even the said report has not been brought on record. Thus, whether in the said report, either in the body thereof or by annexing FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 14/59 therewith the relevant documents, IG Police Karnataka Lokayuktha had placed on record the material collected on investigation of the matter which would prima facie establish existence of evidence in regard to the commission of the offence by the public servant concerned is not evident. Ordinarily, before passing an order of sanction, the entire records containing the materials collected against the accused should be placed before the sanctioning authority. In the event, the order of sanction does not indicate application of mind as the materials placed before the said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the same may be produced before the court to show that such material had in fact been produced ".
9. In the instant matter, besides the fact that it cannot be gathered that the entire material had not been considered by the sanctioning authority prior to issuance of sanction order against the accused persons, otherwise also the instant matter is at the stage of framing of charge only and the stage of evidence is yet to arrive whereby the prosecution is yet to avail the opportunity to prove that the valid sanction had been granted by adducing the evidence and to show on record that the same was issued after due application of mind and after having considered the entire material relevant for the purpose of invocation of charges under MCOCA against the accused persons. For the abovesaid reliance is placed upon Rambhai Nathbhai Gadhvi & Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat AIR 1997 SC 3475, Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon Vs. State of Gujrat, Adnan FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 15/59 Bilal Mulla Vs. State of Maharashtra 2010 All M.R. (Cri.) 1212, Dilawer Singh Vs. Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal Singh & Anr (2005) 12 SCC 709, King AIR 1948 Privy Counsel 82, State of Rajasthan Vs. Tarachand Jain 1974 (3) SCC 72, Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1979 (4) SCC 172, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs. Dr. R.C. Anand & Anr. 2004 (4) SCC 615, C.S. Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka 2005 (4) SCC 81, and upon R.S. Pandi Vs. State of Bihar 1963 Supp. (2) SCR 652 wherein interalia it was observed that " it is necessary for the investigating authority to place adequate material before the authority which grants approval and sanction and the approval order and the sanction order being not a mechanical exercise must disclose application of mind but they are not expected to be verbose " . It was also observed that " it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by sanctioning authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence and this should be done in two ways either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction or (2) by adducing the evidence alinude to show that the facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it "
10. The next submission of Ld. Counsel for defence was pertaining to territorial jurisdiction. It was submitted that the provisions of FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 16/59 MCOCA are not applicable in the instant matter since the three cases which were discussed for the purpose of invocation of MCOCA were pertaining to the jurisdiction of state of U.P.. It was also argued that even as per the case of prosecution, accused Prem Prakash was found involved in as many as 17 cases but none of the cases except for FIR no. 63/09 pertain to the courts having jurisdiction in State of Delhi. All the offences mentioned in the FIR were committed either in U.P. or North India and no offence was committed within the territory of NCT of Delhi where MCOCA is applicable. I agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for defence to the extent that the cases mentioned from s.no. 1 to 12 may not have much significance for the purpose of invocation of MCOCA against accused Munna Bajrangi because even as per the prosecution case, the cases mentioned from s.no. 1 to 12 had not been committed within the preceding ten years from the date of arrest of accused Munna Bajrangi @ Prem Prakash Singh. It is also correct that the cases listed at s.no. 13, 14, 15 and 16 also had not been committed within the territory of NCT of Delhi except for the case listed at s.no. 17 i.e. FIR no. 63/09. It is submitted that since the prosecution has not been able to prove that any cognizance was taken by the competent court even in case FIR no. 63/09, therefore the courts at Delhi do not have jurisdiction to entertain the prosecution case under the stringent provisions of MCOCA. Much of the reliance was also sought by Ld. Counsel for defence from the observations of Hon'ble High Court in State Vs. Satya Prakash where in FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 17/59 the bail order was under challenge which was passed in favour of the accused against whom provisions of MCOCA were invoked and it was quoted that " since the cases which had been registered within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts were under Arms Act, whereas other matters which were the subject matter for invocation of MCOCA against the accused were not committed within the jurisdiction of State of Delhi and had been committed within the jurisdiction of state of U.P., therefore cognizance of those offences could not have been taken by the court of Delhi . " However it may be noted that the observations which have been quoted in the matter (supra) were not the observations of Hon'ble Court but merely the submissions of Ld. Counsel for defence.
11. It was further the argument of Ld. Counsel for defence that MCOCA was extended to Delhi in the year 2002 and as per the requirements to initiate the proceedings under the said act, at least two cases must have been registered after the said date and in one of the cases, the cognizance must have been taken by the court which is not the case in the present matter. It would not be out of place to mention here that the purpose behind enactment of MCOCA was to curb the activities of organized crime syndicate whose activities are spread beyond the national boundaries.
12. It is also apparent from the scope and object of MCOCA that the act was not enacted only to deal with the organized crime committed within the territorial jurisdiction of one state but to curb the unlawful FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 18/59 activities of the crime syndicate not only within the boundaries of the country but also beyond the national boundaries. I agree with the arguments of Ld. Special PP that as per the statement and object of the act since it was noticed that the organized criminals have been making extensive use of wire and oral communication in their criminal activities, the interception of such communication to obtain evidence of the commission of crime or to prevent their commission would be indispensable for enforcement of law and administration of justice. It is also agreeable that the wire and oral communication of criminals cannot remain confined only to one territory and if the organized crime is being committed as per the command received through wire or oral communication even though the command is coming from outside the territory of that particular state where the provisions of MCOCA are applicable and it is shown that the activities of a person who are giving command is continuing unlawful activity , the provisions of MCOCA will be invoked. If the contention of Ld. Counsel for defence is accepted that at least two charge sheets are required to be filed within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts, the abovesaid would negate the very purpose of enactment or extension of provisions of MCOCA to the State of Delhi since as already observed, the object for enactment is to curb the organized crime which are spreading throughout the country and even beyond the national boundaries. Ld. Special PP for state in support of his contention placed reliance upon Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. State of FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 19/59 NCT of Delhi 2009 (164) DLT 218 wherein it was observed that " The charge sheets which have been filed against the petitioner earlier would be taken cognizance of and tried in accordance with law prevalent at the relevant stage of time. These charge sheets would not be tried under the said Act. However, in present case there are two FIRs which were registered in the year 2003 and in 2006. Thus, undisputedly more than one charge sheet filed after the said act come into force. The State of Union of India is also consistent with the aforesaid to the extent that charge sheets filed before 2.1.2002 would be proceeded with under the relevant provisions of the IPC and not MCOCA. Section 2 (1) (d) & (e) r/w section 3 of the said act are stated to take into account the charge sheets filed by the police on which cognizance have been taken by the competent court in the preceding ten years but the earlier charge sheets were not to be tried under MCOCA. The stand of the Union of India is, however and rightly so, that one cannot lose sight of the object with which the said act is being brought into force, which is to control organized crime which transcends borders. Persons located in different countries continue to indulge in criminal activity from distance afar through various communication channels. The problem is more aggravated because such crime has direct linkage with terrorism and the larger interest of state requires that such persons should be brought to book. It is with this salutary objective in mind that the special act was brought into force " . Though Ld. Counsel for defence submitted that the FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 20/59 abovesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts of the instant case because the said case had been decided on the basis of different question of law involved therein and the facts of the present case are different from the facts of the above mentioned case. However there cannot be any dispute with respect to the observations on the question of law as have been discussed by Hon'ble High Court in the authority cited (supra) though the facts may be different from the instant case. Besides that in the instant matter also one charge sheet had been filed within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts against accused Prem Prakash Singh where the cognizance had also been taken by the competent court. Albeit , this would be a different aspect to be discussed herein after, as argued by Ld. Defence counsel that even other wise accused persons have been acquitted in that matter. It is pertinent to mention here that law is well settled that conviction or acquittal in previous matter would have no bearing with respect to purpose of invocation of MCOCA since the reference to previous charge sheets is required only to see his antecedents. It has already been observed in Jag Mohan @ Mohar Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police 2007 (1) JCC 292 that " Charge sheets have been filed and court has taken cognizance interpretation of simply because language used is "charge sheets have been filed" and "Court has taken cognizance" . Section cannot be interpreted as only referring to pending charge sheets - language of the section clearly indicates that all such offences in respect of which charge sheets have been filed and courts FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 21/59 have taken cognizance have to be considered. When a case is decided, there is either acquittal or conviction. There is no dispute that if the cases end in conviction, they would indicate that accused had been involved in the past 10 years in unlawful activity.
So far as the objection of taking into account the cases in which an acquittal has taken place in view of bar of Article 20 of constitution is concerned, one has to keep in mind that the accused is not being asked to stand trial for those cases. Those cases are cited only to say that he has been accused in the past " .
13. Further reliance is also placed upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in Bharat Shanti Lal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra Crl. W.P. No. 27/2003, wherein it was held that " the result of the previous charge sheets is not material for our present purpose. The definition ropes in any one charged more than once irrespective of whether the charge resulted in an acquittal or conviction, the circumstances that followed the charge are not material. The provision only defines what is continued unlawful activity and refers to whether a person has been charged over a period of ten years for the purpose of seeing whether the person is charged for the first time or has been charged often. The limited purpose is to see antecedents of the person. Not to convict.
The definition under section 2 (d) and 2 (e) presupposes an earlier trial with filing of the charge sheet and cognizance being taken. The acquittal or conviction is not determinative of the commission of the FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 22/59 offence. Rather filing of the charge sheet and cognizance are regarded as demonstrative of indulging and having propensity of organized crime which is actionable under this act ".
14. The next contention of Ld. Counsel for defence was pertaining to the prosecution case being hit by section 10 and 25 of MCOCA and section 12 and 20 of U.P. Gangsters Act since two of the accused namely Munna Bajrangi and Mukhtar Ansari are also facing trial under U.P. Gangsters Act. It was argued that in terms of sec. 10 of MCOCA and section 12 of U.P. Gangsters Act, the trial by special courts shall have the precedence over the trial of any other case against the accused in any other court (not being a special court) and in terms of section 25 of MCOCA and section 20 of U.P. Gangsters Act, both the provisions shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any any other enactment. According to Ld. Counsel for defence as per the list of cases furnished by the investigating agency, both accused Prem Prakash Singh and Mukhtar Ansari are facing prosecution under the special law before special designated court under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act, therefore the case of prosecution cannot be tried within the jurisdiction of NCT of Delhi as all the cases relied upon by the investigating agency in the charge sheet pertain to U.P. and even the legislature has not given the powers to cross/overlook the special law of the other states. It was also argued that in terms of section 6 of MCOCA every offence punishable under this act shall be triable only by the special FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 23/59 court within whose jurisdiction it was committed or as the case may be, by the special courts constituted for trying such offence under sub section (1) of Section 5. However I am again in humble disagreement with the contention of Ld. Counsel for defence . Not only one of the cases had been filed within the jurisdiction of NCT of Delhi courts where the cognizance had also been taken by the competent court, besides the fact that the statements of witnesses which had been recorded during the investigation of the instant case point out towards the unlawful activities of the accused persons within the territory of NCT of Delhi as well. Two of the accused persons though are facing trial under U.P. Gangsters Act but definitely are not facing trial under the MCOCA which has also not been extended to the state of U.P. Though some of the provisions of both the acts are similar, yet both the acts are different enactments having been enacted for different objects. The case would have been different had the accused persons been facing trial under the provisions of MCOCA only in some other state where the act has been implemented or extended on the basis of same activities and therefore definitely could not have been tried again in Delhi but because some of the accused persons are facing trial under U.P. Gangsters act cannot be the reason for their discharge from the provisions under MCOCA,if otherwise, prima facie case is disclosed on record against them .
15. Reliance was also placed by Ld. Counsel for defence upon State of M.P. Vs. Radhakrishna decided on 7th April 2008 wherein it FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 24/59 was observed that the special courts constituted by the State Government under these notifications, were not empowered to try the cases of other special courts constituted under other Acts or in other words, these two special courts have no power to take cognizance of the cases of each other. The forum of the trial of the offences under a particular act is regulated by that Act, if provided. According to the notifications issued by the State Government, since Special Courts have been established and the provisions of the forum of the trial have been made, certainly the trial cannot go in accordance with the general provisions of the code. The abovesaid authority rather goes against the very own arguments of Ld. Counsel for defence which itself answers the objections raised by him that if the accused persons are already facing trial in U.P. Gangsters Act, then they cannot be tried under the provisions of MCOCA before Delhi Courts. It is also answered in the observation of Hon'ble High Court that the special courts are not empowered to try the cases of each other. In the instant matter, it is not the case that the investigating agency has filed charge sheet under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act before Delhi Courts but the charge sheet has been filed before Delhi Courts under the provisions of MCOCA which is a different statute , and thereby neither the special court trying the offences against the accused persons in U.P. Gangsters act has the power to try the accused persons under the provisions of MCOCA nor the same is true vice versa. As this court being the special court is trying the offences alleged under the provisions of FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 25/59 MCOCA, therefore pendency of the cases against the accused persons under U.P. Gangsters act does not debar this court from trying the cases under different statute against the same accused persons.
16. Ld. Counsel for defence also raised an other argument that registration of separate FIR under MCOCA is not permissible if the same was not introduced alongwith the principal offence/FIR. Therefore prosecution case as argued is also hit by section 11 of MCOCA. It was argued that section 11 itself provides the power to the designated courts to transfer the matter to the court having jurisdiction to try the cases in case the court does not find sufficient ground to proceed under MCOCA against the accused persons. It was also argued that at the time of introduction of MCOCA, the intent of legislature was very much clear that if any crime was committed by any person as defined in section 2 (d),
(e) & (f), then said person is liable to be prosecuted in MCOC Act alongwith the principal offence . It was stated for example that if any person either singly or jointly acted and committed a crime like kidnapping and murder and FIR is registered for kidnapping and murder and during the inquiry/investigation, if it is revealed to the investigating agency that the said offence was committed in execution of the work assigned by a syndicate or organized crime, then the investigating agency is free to add the relevant section of the MCOC Act in that FIR but separate FIR under MCOC Act is not permissible. It is correct that in terms of section 11 of MCOCA if the special court is of the opinion that FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 26/59 the offence is not triable by it, it shall nothwithstanding that it has no jurisdiction to try such offence, transfer the case for trial to any court having jurisdiction under the code, but in no way this can be interpreted that it was the intention of the legislature to impose the provisions of MCOCA only alongwith the principal offence since it is clear in the definition of the act itself that the provisions of MCOCA can be imposed, based upon the continuing unlawful activities of the accused persons, singly or jointly and by the members of organized crime syndicate alongwith the pre requisites of more than one charge sheets having been filed before the competent court within the preceding 10 years as well as court having taken cognizance of such charge sheet against the accused. For imposition of MCOCA, what is relevant is the previous antecedents of the accused persons and their involvement in continuing unlawful activities whereby ordinary law of land is unable to curb their activities. Once the investigating agency comes to the aobvesaid conclusion, only then the provisions of MCOCA can be imposed against the accused persons. Addition of provisions of MCOCA alongwith principal offence has no where been mandatory in the act since as already observed it is not on the basis of only one offence that the provisions of MCOCA can be invoked. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for defence that in fact an application had also been moved before the court of Ld. CMM for clubbing of the case arising out of FIR no. 63/09 with the instant matter which was dismissed by Ld. CMM. The said order had never been FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 27/59 challenged by the prosecution. However Ld. APP submitted while placing reliance upon Shiv Murat Dwivedi @ Shiva Vs. State Crl. M.C. No. 4341/2011 and Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2009 (164) DLT 218 that in both the cases, the order for framing of charge has been upheld by Hon'ble Superior Courts whereas in both the matters the separate FIR had been registered under the provisions of MCOC Act which were also not clubbed with any other offence. I agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for defence that the said argument was never raised before Hon'ble Superior Courts in both the abovesaid cases, therefore, the same may not be considered the ratio decidendi of those cases, yet can be considered obiterdicta and it can be gathered that clubbing of the provisions of MCOCA with the main case was not mandatory. Ld. APP has also placed reliance upon John Disuja Vs. ACP Criminal Writ Petition 1/2007 where also though the observations were not pertaining to the issue in question but stated that the inference can be drawn since in the abovesaid case it was held that the registration of separate FIR under MCOCA is not mandatory which is also true for the proposition vice versa that the registration of FIR in isolation only under the provisions of MCOCA is not barred. Hence I find the abovesaid contention of Ld. Counsel for defence not tenable that the separate FIR under MCOCA is not permissible or is hit by section 11 of MCOCA.
17. Further the requirements for invocation of MCOCA against the accused persons is that it should satisfy the ingredients of section 2 FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 28/59 for charging a person of organized crime or being a member of organized crime, it would be necessary to prove that the persons concerned have indulged in :
(i) an activity
(ii) which is prohibited by law
(iii)which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more
(iv) undertaken either singly or jointly
(v) as a member of organized crime syndicate i.e. acting as a syndicate or a gang, or on behalf of such syndicate
(vi) (a) in respect of similar activities (in the past) more than one charge sheets have been filed in a competent court within the preceding period of ten years
(b) and the court has taken cognizance of such offence
(vii) the activity is undertaken by violence, threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means
(viii) (a) with the object of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue or other advantage for himself or any other person or
(b) with the object of promoting insurgency.
18. Accused Prem Prakash had been found involved in 17 criminal cases and according to the case of prosecution, he was running extortion syndicate. The cases against accused Prem Prakash which can be considered for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion if prima facie case is made out against him for framing of charge under the provisions of MCOCA have been referred at s.no. 13 to 17 whereas cases listed at s.no. 1 to 12 had been committed prior to the preceding period of 10 years. The case listed at s.no. 15 cannot be considered since accused was FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 29/59 booked only under U.P. Gangsters Act. The matters which are further in the consideration zone are at s.no. 13, 14, 16 and 17. All the abovesaid cases pertain to the activities of accused found involved in commission of the offence of murder on failure of the victims to accede to the demands of accused as per the statements recorded during the investigation of this case. Whereas the case listed at s.no. 17 was with respect to the extortion activities of the accused though not coupled with loss of any life. Besides the abovesaid, during the investigation, statements of many witnesses were also recorded who had received the threatening or extortion calls from the accused Prem Prakash Singh as well as the statements of witnesses recording during the investigation revealed about involvement of other accused persons in the activities of crime syndicate. Though it was rightly contended by Ld. Counsel for defence that there was no corresponding FIR regarding calls of extortion or threat to the witnesses of the case however again I am in disagreement with the further contention of Ld. Counsel for defence that at the time of framing of charge under MCOCA designated court can only take into consideration those cases in which FIR has already been registered and the competent court has taken the cognizance and not the statements of any other witnesses based upon which no FIR had been registered. The law is well settled that during the trial of organized crime previous involvement of last preceding 10 years is taken as activities as not as offence. It was rightly argued by Ld. Special PP for state that for this reason alone, the FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 30/59 constitutional validity of MCOCA was upheld as not violation of article 20 of Constitution of India and section 300 Cr.P.C. To establish commission of organized crime, the prosecution is required to show that the offence which is committed after the year 2002 where violence or threat of violence was used in order to gain pecuniary benefit was the result of " continuing unlawful activity". For constituting continuing unlawful activity , taking of cognizance in more than one charge sheet in last preceding 10 years is required. It is not the requirement of law that in all cases of last 10 years there must be the cognizance. Therefore, when the requirement of law is taking of cognizance only in more than one charge sheet in last preceding 10 years, there will be no requirement under MCOCA that all such cases showing involvement in all cases must be reported to police and charge sheet must have been filed in all those cases. The statements of witnesses namely Deepak, Sant Lal Yadav, Anand and Others rather indicate the purpose for which MCOCA was enacted i..e existing legal frame work was found inadequate to curb or control the organized crime. Due to fear of the members of this syndicate they did not come forward to make the criminal administration system into motion but when the members of this gang i.e. Prem Prakash Singh, Miraz and Iftikar etc. were arrested they came forward and gave their statements.
19. In Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2009 (164) DLT 218 it was observed that " The Division Bench, thus, rejected FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 31/59 the arguments based on the definition of continue criminal activity being vague. Similarly,the challenge to the said provision being violative of article 14 of the constitution of India was also negated in the following words " .... If we read the definition again, what has been defined as continuing unlawful activity is a member of organized crime syndicate in respect of which any activity prohibited by law and done repeatedly i.e. more than one for which charge sheet has been filed in the court of competent jurisdiction in the past ten years. The purpose of definition is to define what continuing unlawful activity is and it is for the purposes of defining what is continued unlawful activity that those charges are to be taken into consideration. Mere taking into consideration of such charges cannot result in discrimination of the kind alleged by Sh. Manohar. The activity must be continuing unlawful activity and to define it with clarity it is provided that any person who in the past was charge sheeted for more than one charge of such activity or crime, the cognizance of which had been taken and imprisonment for which is more than three years should be taken into account. The fact of the person having been charge sheeted in such cognizable offences in the past makes the unlawful activity, continuing unlawful activity. This section only defines what the activity is. It does not itself provide for any punishment for that activity. Had punishment been provided the submission that it treats while punishing unequal as equals may carry weight age. That being not the case in challenge to section 2 (1) (d) of the act we see no vagueness or violation FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 32/59 of Article 14 by the definition. We find that the provision treats all those covered by it in a like manner and does not suffer from the vide of class legislation ". In the instant matter, the material which has been placed on record shows the criminal history of accused Munna Bajrangi @ Prem Prakash Singh as discussed above and his involvement in the cases spanning for more than 2 decades. Though as already observed the cases prior to 1999 may not be considered for the purpose of noting down the filing of charge sheets in preceding ten years for invocation of MCOCA but still speaks about his continuing unlawful activities which is even spanning for more than the period as is required for imposition of MCOCA. The statements of victims of extortion who had not paid the extortion money to the crime syndicate being run by accused Prem Prakash Singh and consequently were either threatened or killed as well as the statements of victims who had been paying or are still paying the extortion money to the syndicate being run by accused Prem Prakash Singh are also on record.
20. Though according to Ld. Counsel for defence, the call details and location details have not been placed on record however phone details of the accused persons with respect to extortion calls made to some of the victims are also on record. As was sought to be clarified by the prosecution that the FIRs had not been got registered by the victims due to the fear of death/killing which further makes the terror of accused Prem Prakash Singh and his associates apparent. Contrary to the assertion of FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 33/59 Ld. Counsel for defence that all the statements of alleged victims of extortion activities of accused persons which have been recorded are not living in Delhi, therefore also Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction, perusal of the record reveals that statement of Ashok Tebriwal and Shailesh Asthana had also been recorded who are the residents of Delhi or settled in Delhi and are the alleged victims of extortion calls of accused Munna Bajrangi and his associates. The credibility of the statements of these witnesses besides the other witnesses are yet to be tested at the peril of evidence during the trial and therefore cannot be discarded at this stage. Though as stated, one of the abovesaid witnesses has already turned hostile in FIR no. 63/09, however he has also been cited as witness in this case and it is for the prosecution to explain with respect to the different versions of the same witness, if any, during the trial.
21. Though it is also correct that had this case arising out of FIR no 63/09 not been registered in Delhi as well as even those two witnesses had not leveled the allegations of extortion against the accused persons , probably there was no occasion or reason for the investigating agency of Delhi to initiate or even contemplate any action against the accused persons but from the above said, it can be inferred at this stage that the accused persons who were previously operating within the periphery of State of U.P. now have spread their wings within the territory of NCT of Delhi as well and once it is alleged that they have traveled beyond the boundaries of other state and have entered into the territory of NCT of FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 34/59 Delhi, where MCOC Act is applicable, then the investigating agency is justified in prosecuting them under the provisions of MCOCA.
22. Prosecution has also brought on record the details of assets of all the accused persons which were found to be beyond their means of income during investigation. However it was submitted on behalf of defence that the prosecution has miserably failed to show the accumulation of wealth by the accused persons from the proceeds of crime. It may be stated that the investigation having already been carried out with respect to the source of income of the accused persons and their possession of movable or immovable properties, the details of the same which have been filed on record are required to be proved during the evidence besides the fact that at the stage of framing of charge, the factum of accumulation of wealth with the accused persons would not be so material till the time the prosecution is able to show on record that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused persons were for the purpose of pecuniary gain or other advantages as enumerated in MCOCA in which the prosecution has succeeded so far.
23. It was further the argument of Ld. Counsel for defence that the prosecution has failed to satisfy the pre condition of section 2 (1) (d) and 2 (1) (e) of MCOCA prior to invocation of the provisions of MCOCA against the accused persons. According to section 2 (1) (e), there has to be continuing unlawful activity which activity can be done by an individual singly or jointly either by member of organized crime syndicate or on FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 35/59 behalf of such syndicate with use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means and has to be with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or economic advantage or other advantages for himself or for any other person or promoting insurgency.
24. Section 2 (1) (d) talks about continuing unlawful activity which is defined as the activity which is prohibited by law and is cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more and such activities undertaken either singly or jointly as a member of crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate and in respect of such activities more than one charge sheet must have been filed before the competent court, besides the requirement that the charge sheet must have been filed within preceding period of 10 years and the court must have taken cognizance of such offence. Whereas crime syndicate has been defined in section 2 (f) which means a group of two or more person acting either singly or collectively as syndicate or gang indulged in activities of organized crime. A conjoint reading of these definitions makes it clear that the activities can be undertaken by a person singly but it is required to be on behalf of such syndicate or jointly as member of this crime syndicate. It is rightly pointed out by Ld. Special PP for the state that the specific emphasis is not on the act of individual . Rather it is important to see whether he is working on behalf of such syndicate or as member of such syndicate. The activities of the accused persons which have been pointed out on record were pertaining to the unlawful activities which are FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 36/59 considered organized crime and also punishable with imprisonment of three years or more and as per the material placed on record are being conducted in organized manner by crime syndicate also with the use of violence or threat of violence, besides the use of intimidation or coercion. The allegations which have been leveled against the accused persons per se point out towards the common object of gaining pecuniary benefits since the accused persons have been alleged to be involved in criminal activities of extortion which per se is only to derive the pecuniary benefits or undue economic advantage. The above discussion is complete for accused Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi . However additional arguments were raised on behalf of other accused persons.
25. It was additionally submitted on behalf of accused Miraj Ahmed and Iftikar Ahmed that there is no evidence on record to suggest that there was involvement of accused Miraz Ahmed and Iftikar Ahmed in any continuing unlawful activities as envisaged in section 2 (d) of the act. It is submitted that it is the allegation of the prosecution that organized crime syndicate was being run by accused Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi with the help and involvement of his associates including abovesaid accused who used to conspire, abet and knowingly facilitate the commission of organized crime but the investigating agency failed to collect any evidence to show that they were either members of crime syndicate being run by accused Munna Bajrangi or did any act on behalf of such syndicate. It was further submitted that accused Miraz Ahmed FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 37/59 was not associated with accused Munna Bajrangi in any case prior to FIR bearing no. 63/09. It is also correct that only FIR bearing no. 63/09 had been registered against accused Iftikar Ahmed against which cognizance had also been taken but with respect to involvement of accused Iftikar, no other case has been placed on record by the investigating agency. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for defence that on failure of prosecution to bring any material on record with respect to involvement of accused Iftikar in any other case except for case arising out of FIR no. 63/09,no case is made out against accused Iftikar Ahmed, besides the fact that accused Iftikar has also already been acquitted in the case arising out of FIR no. 63/09. The only difference between the case pertaining to accused Iftikar and Miraz Ahmed is with respect to their involvement as accused Miraz Ahmed has been found involved in as many as 11 cases whereas accused Iftikar Ahmed had not been charge sheeted in any case prior to registration of FIR no. 63/09. However as per the list of involvement of accused Miraz Ahmed which has been placed on record & considering the nature of offence, none of the cases seem to be of nature which may strictly fall within the purview of MCOCA or fulfill all the requirements for invocation of MCOCA against him except for FIR no. 63/09. Therefore his case also stand on almost the similar footing with that of accused Iftikar Ahmad against whom not even a single charge sheet has been filed prior to registration of FIR no. 63/09. It was submitted on behalf of defence that the provisions of section 3 (1) of FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 38/59 MCOCA are not attracted because they had not been involved in any case except for case FIR no. 63/09. For the purpose of invocation of MCOCA, accused should have been involved in minimum 2 cases which have been committed by him for pecuniary benefits as well as court must have taken cognizance of the said offence as defined u/s 2 (d) of MCOCA. It was further submitted that even the offence u/s 3 (2) of MCOCA for facilitating organized crime is not made out against accused Iftikar Ahmed and Miraz Ahmed as there is no evidence which may suggest that the accused Iftikar and Miraz actively participated with accused Munna Bajrangi or Mukhtar Ansari or any other person in commission of crime either directly or indirectly for the purpose of running organized crime for their pecuniary benefits. For the abovesaid reliance was placed by Ld. Counsel for defence upon State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal & Another (2007) 4 SCC 171 wherein it was observed that applicability of MCOCA would not come in picture in absence of involvement of accused persons in any continuing unlawful activities. It was reiterated that the police officials have recorded the statements of many victims but all those persons never filed any complaint or FIR against any person besides the fact that the disclosure statements of both the accused persons are not admissible as per evidence act and even as per the provisions of MCOCA. It was submitted that even if for the sake of argument it is admitted that the abovesaid accused persons collected some money from alleged witnesses but still it cannot FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 39/59 be said that they facilitated Mukhtar Ansari and Munna Bajrangi in committing any organized crime because alleged unlawful activities which had already been committed on phone whereas no case had been registered against them, therefore even if the accused had collected money from them, the same is no offence. For the abovesaid, reliance was placed upon Arup Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam decided on 3.2.2011 wherein it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that no person can be prosecuted/charge sheeted merely on the basis of disclosure statements. The confessional statements of accused as rightly argued were not admissible in evidence having not been recorded in accordance with the provisions of section 18 of the Act. It was submitted by Ld. APP that the charge against accused Miraz Ahmed and Iftikar Ahmed is required to be framed under section 3 ( 2) of the act. Though it was rightly submitted by Ld. Counsel for defence that there was no segregation of offences/ sections in the charge sheet filed by the prosecution but it is also correct that at this stage of framing of charge, court is required to see that the charge is framed against the accused persons only under appropriate sections even if that is not so suggested by the prosecution in the charge sheet. The allegations in terms of the prosecution case against accused Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi are found to be under section 3 (1) (ii) whereas charge which was pressed against accused Miraz Ahmed and Iftikar Ahmed are u/s 3 (2) of the Act. However statement of witnesses which were recorded during the course of investigation are on FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 40/59 record particularly the statement of PW Deepak, Rampal, Sant Lal, Anand, Hemant, Ajay and others who have categorically stated that the money was being collected from them by accused Iftikar Ahmed and Miraz Ahmed for accused Munna Bajrangi @ Prem Prakash Singh.
26. With respect to non registration of FIR consequent to the threat or extortion calls to the witnesses of the case by the abovesaid accused persons also, the said issue has already been discussed. However with respect to other contentions , though it is correct that the disclosure statements of the accused persons may not be admissible in evidence which have neither led to any recovery nor have been recorded by the authority competent to record the same as per the provisions of MCOCA but as per the record, the evidence against accused Miraz Ahmed and Iftikar Ahmed was also collected during the interceptions of the mobile phones which is permissible under MCOCA and the voice of accused Miraz Ahmed and Iftikar Ahmed was also confirmed from FSL. Besides the fact that some of the witnesses have categorically stated about collection of money from them and non lodging of FIR because of fear and threat of the accused persons but since the prosecution has pressed for the charge against accused Miraz Ahmed and Iftikar Ahmed only u/s 3 (2) of MCOCA which talks about only facilitating, conspiring or abeting the organized crime, suffice it would be if the prosecution has been able to show on record that the prima facie allegations are against both the accused persons. Veracity of the statements of witnesses recorded during FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 41/59 investigation is yet to be checked during the peril of trial and at this stage, prosecution cannot be denied the said opportunity of proving the same.
27. So far as the contention that accused Iftkar had no previous involvement or previous involvement of accused Miraz Ahmed may not also be considered for the purpose of invocation of MCOCA, suffice it would be to say that if the prosecution has been able to prima facie show on record with respect to their link with the activities of organized crime syndicate being run by accused Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi they can also be tried for the offence as enumerated under section 3 (2) of MCOCA. Further the requirement of filing of more than one charge sheet cannot be interpreted in reference to filing of charge sheet not again the crime syndicate but against individual members.
28. The relevant observations from Govind Sakharam Ubhe Vs. State of Maharashtra 2009 ALL MR (CRI) 1903 are reproduced herein in support of the above.
" Section 2 (1) (d) defines ' continuing unlawful activity' to mean an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge sheet has been filed before a competent court within the preceding ten years and that court has taken cognizance of such offence. Thus, for an activity to be a ' continuing unlawful activity' - a) the activity FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 42/59 must be prohibited by law ; b) it must be a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more ; (c) it must be undertaken singly or jointly; d) it must be undertaken as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate ; e) in respect of which more than one charge sheet have been filed before a competent court.
The words ' in respect of which more than one charge sheet has been filed ' cannot go with the words ' a member of a crime syndicate ' because in that case, these words would have been read as ' in respect of whom more than one charge sheet has been filed.
But even other wise, if all provisions are read together we reach the same conclusion. Section 2(1) (d) which defines ' continuing unlawful activity' sets down a period of 10 years within which more than one charge sheet has to be filed. The members of the crime syndicate operate either singly or jointly in commission of organized crime.They operate in different modules. A person may be a part of the module which jointly undertakes an organized crime or he may singly as a member of the organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate undertakes an organized crime. In both the situation, the MCOCA can be applied. It is the membership of organized crime syndicate which makes a person liable under the MCOCA. This is evident from section 3 (4) of MCOCA which states that any person who is a member of an organized crime syndicate shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 43/59 shall also be liable to fine, subject to a minimum of fine of Rs. 5 Lakhs. The charge under the MCOCA ropes in a person who as a member of the organized crime syndicate commits organized crime i.e. acts of extortion by giving threats, etc. to gain economic advantage or supremacy, as a member of crime syndicate singly or jointly. Charge is is respect of unlawful activities of the organized crime syndicate. Therefore, if within a period of preceding 10 years, one, charge sheet has been filed in respect of organized crime committed by the members of a particular crime syndicate, the said charge sheet can be taken against a member of the said crime syndicate for the purpose of application of MCOCA against him even if he is involved in one case. The organized crime committed by him will be a part of the continuing unlawful activity of the organized crime syndicate. What is important is the nexus or the link of the person with organized crime syndicate. The link with the ' organized crime syndicate' is the crux of the term ' continuing unlawful activity'. If this link is not established, that person cannot be roped in".
29. Another objection taken was non filing of any charge sheet against other associates namely Mahender Ayare and Rizwan who were coaccused in FIR no. 63/09. It was submitted on behalf of defence that since case against accused Miraz Ahmed and Iftikar Ahmed is stated to be made out only on the basis of FIR no. 63/09, the other coaccused persons who are on the same footing have been let off by the investigating agency. It was submitted on behalf of state that both accused Mahendre Ayare and FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 44/59 Rizwan were not found committing any offence mentioned in section 3 (2) or 3 (3) of MCOCA as well as they were also not named by any public witness nor they were found involved in any previous offence with accused Munna Bajrangi. Besides the fact that according to prosecution no link between accused Mahender Ayare and Rizwan could be established with accused Munna Bajrangi @ Prem Prakash Singh for the purpose of invocation of provisions of MCOCA against them , yet this fact is to be explained or answered by the prosecution during the trial and merely because the charge sheet has not been filed against other accused persons cannot itself be the reason to discharge the accused persons against whom sufficient material has been placed on record.
30. With respect to accused Mukhtar Ansari , supplementary charge sheet was filed by the investigating agency who was not involved in FIR no. 63/09 which has remained the epic centre for invocation of MCOCA against the accused persons and therefore the charge pressed against accused Mukhtar Ansari is only pertaining to section 3 (4) of MCOCA which prescribes the punishment for being the member of an organized crime syndicate. It was submitted by Ld. APP that under this clause i.e. section 3 (4) mere membership is made punishable which issue according to him was discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalpnath Rai Vs. State AIR 1998 SC 2001 wherein A1, A2, A3 and A6 were convicted under Section 3(5) of TADA in addition to other offences and it was observed that :
FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 45/59 " Any person who is a member of a terrorists gang or a terrorists organisation, which is involved in terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
The sustainability of the conviction thereunder is assailed before us from different angles. First is that the provision itself is invalid due to stark vagueness. Second is, to claw down to the tentacles of the provision it is not enough that the accused concerned is a terrorist by himself, but he should have membership in a terrorists gang which is involved in terrorist acts. The third is that both ingredients i.e. membership of terrorists' gang and involvement of such gang in terrorist acts, must have taken place after the subsection was enacted. According to the counsel there is utter lack of evidence in this case in that regard.
Subsection 3(5) was inserted in TADA by Act 43 of 1993 which came into force on 23.5.1993. Under Article 20(1) of the Constitution "no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence. So it is not enough that one was member of a terrorists gang before 23.5.1993.
There are two postulates in Subsection (5). First is that the accused should have been a member, of "a terrorists gang" or "terrorists organisation" after23.5.1993. Second is that the said gang or FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 46/59 organisation should have involved in terrorist acts subsequent to 23.5.1993. Unless both postulates exist together Section 3(5) cannot be used against any person.
He who does a terrorist act falling within the aforesaid meaning is liable to be punished under Subsection (2) of Section 3. But there are some other acts closely linked with the above but not included in Subsection (1), such as entering into a conspiracy to do the above acts or to abet, advise, incite or facilitate the commission of such acts. Such acts are also made punishable under Subsection (3) which reads thus:
Whoever conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises or incites or knowingly facilitates the commission of, a terrorist act or any act preparatory to a terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Can it be said that a person who conspires, abets, advises or incites or facilitates the commission of the acts specified in Subsection (1) was not committing a terrorist act? It would be illogical to delink the acts enumerated in Subsection (3) from those specified in Subsection (1) for the purpose of understanding the meaning of "terrorist act" indicated in Section 3(5).
It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of law that the definition given in a statute is not always exhaustive unless it is expressly made clear in the statute itself. The key words in the definition section FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 47/59 (Section 2) themselves are clear guide to show that the definitions given thereunder are to be appropriately varied if the context so warrants. The key words are these: "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires".
Therefore the meaningful understanding should be this. For the purpose of Subsection (2) the terrorist acts are those specified in Subsection (1) whereas for the purpose of Subsection (5) the terrorist acts would embrace not only those enumerated in Subsection (1) but those other acts closely linked to them and indicated in Subsection (3) also.
When so understood, if there is any evidence to show that the gang to which A1, A2, A3 or A6 or any of them was a member, has done any such act after 23.5.1993 then the accused concerned is liable to be convicted under Section 3(5) of TADA ".
31. On the strength of above, it was submitted that accused Mukhtar Ansari was found involved in as many as 37 cases registered against him which qualifies the criteria of continuing unlawful activities, besides the statements of witnesses that he was working in association of accused Munna Bajrangi as syndicate. In the year 2005, he alongwith accused Munna Bajrangi had killed BJP MLA Krishna nand Rai to acquire political supremacy. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of Ld. Counsel for defence that the prosecution has miserably failed to produce any material on record that there was prima facie meeting of minds of abovesaid persons with accused Mukhtar Ansari or they were FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 48/59 having any contact or collusion or conclusiveness with each other to execute any crime within the meaning of organized crime syndicate for the purpose of executing any crime as defined under section 2 of MCOC Act and punishable under section 3 & 4 of MCOCA. Secondly, prosecution failed to show that accused Mukhtar Ansari was the member of continuing unlawful activity, either himself or through others by any means and thirdly as alleged accused Mukhtar Ansari and Prem Prakash Singh are part of organized crime syndicate since 1982 whereas accused Mukhtar Ansari was in judicial custody for the last more than 5 years and it is no where mentioned in the charge sheet that accused Mukhtar Ansari was in touch with any other accused through any means. It was also pointed out that the prosecution has filed detailed charge sheet against four accused persons but failed to show that all of them were the members of organized crime syndicate or were acting either singly or collectively as gang which is indulged in any activity of organized crime. It was also submitted that as per the first charge sheet filed, accused Munna Bajrangi was stated to be the head of said syndicate but after filing of the supplementary charge sheet against accused Mukhtar Ansari, he was shown to be the head of crime syndicate. If there was any group, as defined in section 2 (1) (g), the prosecution itself is giving the two contrary statements before the court of law. It was also argued that even if it is presumed that the story projected by the investigating agency is true and correct, still the investigating agency failed to answer, when the so FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 49/59 called group was formed, by whom the so called group was formed, who was the leader/head of the so called group,who were the members of the so called group,what type of role was assigned/attributed to each member and by whom, whether there was any meeting of minds amongst the members of the so called group at any point of time either personally or through other means and if so when, whether any wealth was discovered or recovered from the possession of any of the accused persons and if so whether the source of that wealth is attributed only to the illegal activities of the so called group as a syndicate, etc.
32. It was also submitted that accused Mukhtar Ansari is sitting MLA and according to prosecution propensity of wealth of accused Mukhtar Ansari is much more than his revelations before elections commission but the prosecution has failed to file a single document which could suggest that accused Mukhtar Ansari purchased the property either movable or immovable from the proceeds of the particular crime or the crimes either in his name or in the name of his relatives/known persons.
33. Another argument was with respect to involvement of accused Mukhtar Ansari in cases which according to the defence did not qualify for the purpose of invocation of MCOCA besides the fact that he has already been acquitted in many cases. It may be noted that the acquittal or conviction of accused in the previous cases would be irrelevant for the consideration of invocation of MCOCA in view of the law laid down in Bharat Shanti Lal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra Crl. WP no.
FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 50/59 27/2003 wherein it was held that " the result of various charge sheets is not material for the purpose of imposition of MCOCA. The definition ropes in any one charged more than once irrespective of whether the charge resulted in an acquittal or conviction, the circumstances that followed the charge are not material. The provision only defines what is continued unlawful activity and refers to whether a person has been charged over a period of ten years for the purpose of seeing whether the person is charged for the first time or has been charged often. The limited purpose is to see antecedents of the person, not to convict. The definition of the offence u/s 2 (d) and 2 (e) presupposes an earlier trial with filing of the charge sheet and cognizance being taken. The acquittal or conviction is not determinative of the commission of the offence. Rather filing of the charge sheet and cognizance are regarded as demonstrative of indulging and having propensity or organized crime which is actionable under this Act "
34. While presenting additional arguments on behalf of accused Mukhtar Ansari, reliance was placed upon following authorities:
(i) AIR 1994 Supreme Court 2623 Courts have to take extra care in scrutinizing the material on record and apply their mind to material and documents available with investigating agency to satisfy court from material collected and not merely by opinion formed by it that activity of the terrotist falls strictly within parameters of TADA.
(ii) II (2007) SLT 428 to apply the provisions of MCOCA FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 51/59 something more in nature coercive acts and violence required to be spelt out so as to bring unlawful activity within the definition of " organized crime" in section 2 (a) of MCOCA.
(iii) 2008 (1) JCC 65 Framing of charge - Affects a person's liberty substantially - needs proper consideration of material.
(iv) VII (2008) SLT 739 Principles of criminal Jurisprudence - Mens rea is always presumed as integral part of penal offence or section unless it is specifically and expressly or by necessary intendment excluded by the legislature.
(v) 2005 (2) JCC 689 MCOC Act 1999 sec. 2 (1) (e) - The words "unlawful means" meaning of - The expression must refer to any such act which has a direct nexus with the commission of crime which MCOCA seeks to prevent or control - These are crimes under the IPC and other penal statues providing punishment of 3 years or more and in relation to such offences more than one charge sheet may be filed -
MCOCA 1999 - For commission of offence under MCOCA mens rea is a necessary ingredient
(vi) 2007 (1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 26 Maharashtra Control or Organized Crime Act 1999 - Sec. 2 (1) (e) & (f) - applicability - charges and sanction - challenged - held, merely stating gang leader and his associates run a crime syndicate with view to gain pecuniary benefit and advantage and supremacy over rival gangs by violence, intimidation and FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 52/59 other coercive means, is not sufficient to maintain a prosecution under MCOCA. Charges and sanction set aside and directed that accused can only be prosecuted under general law. There must be some material even at the prima facie stage in this behalf.
(vii) Madan Vs. State of Maharashtra, Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) 673 Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime act 1999sec. 3 & 4 - Criminal trial - clinches and platitudes have no place while judging conduct of a person which is alleged to be a serious crime attracting heavy punishment - merely because long title of the Act also mentions that the act was passed to prevent and control organized crime, it would not be open to first presume that a person is involved in organized crime because police say so and then deprive him of his liberty.
(viii) 2005 (1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 833 it is correct that evidence cannot be analyzed and issues not prejudged ; but disputed points can be adjudicated and FIR can be seen as to whether any offences under MCOCA was committed. Contention that FIR related to offences committed prior the day Act came into effect and that the process continued after (24.2.1999), but FIR does not disclose any such offence. Concept of continued offence could be relevant if it was initiated under the general law as well as those under MCOCA but that is not the case here. Provisions of MCOC Act are more strict as to procedure of investigation and punishment under it are also severe, therefore, the things as required to be done under a statute have to be done strictly in FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 53/59 accordance with that and not otherwise.
(ix) 2007 (1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 15 merely because several cases are pending against accused is no ground for application of MCOCA - material collected on record does not prima facie show that alleged illegal acts are committed by them as members of organized crime syndicate ; to gain pecuniary benefits. Though offence referred to are serious but applicability of section 3 (1) of MCOCA, this material alone will not be sufficient. Some materials of gain or advantage has to be placed on record. Special court has rightly held that activities may be single or joint or on behalf of syndicate of violence or threat, but unless all conditions of section 2 (1) (e) are satisfied an organized crime cannot be said to have been committed. Merely stating that they are doing it for pecuniary benefits is not enough, unless material is produced to support charge under MCOC Act.
(x) Appa @ Prakash Haribhav Londhe Vs. State of Maharashtra, Bombay High Court 469 Where in FIR details of all the activities prior to 1999 and after have been given showing continuous chain, links of events fulfilling requirements of organized crime or continuing unlawful activities, petition challenging the applicability of Act fail.
(xi) Prafull Vs. State of Maharashtra, Bombay High Court 378 mere proof of filing charge sheets in the past not enough - accused FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 54/59 not shown to have indulged in any crime which can be in continuation of past criminal activity - Provisions of section 3 (i) of the Act not attracted
- He cannot be said to have committed offence of organized crime.
(xi) Joge Gopal Vs. State (Orissa High Court) Crimes VII (1994) (2) 819 Evidence Act 1872, Section 30 - Confession to operate against coaccused when - it must be shown that there was confession proper and not a mere circumstance which could be incriminating - Accused must unreservedly confess his own guilt & implicate another who is jointly tried with him - Confession by appellant found not self implicating - Trial Court was not justified in relying upon such judicial confession against appellants.
35. There cannot be any dispute with respect to the proposition of law as laid down by Hon'ble Superior Courts in abovesaid authorities, however every case is to be decided on the facts of its own. In the instant matter, accused Mukhtar Ansari has been found involved in as many as 37 cases but I agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for defence that the cases listed at s.no. 1 to 25 having been registered prior to 1999, whereas the requirement for filing of charge sheet is within preceding ten years. The other cases which have been registered after 2001, some of the cases are ranging from offences relating to intimidation/threat, kidnapping for ransom as well as attempt to murder and the murder actually having been committed. Accused Mukhtar Ansari as stated is in custody since 2005, yet four more cases have been found registered against him in the year FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 55/59 2007 to 2009 including the instant matter and it was further clarified that in between he was released from J/C. Further accused Mukhtar Ansari was charge sheeted alongwith accused Munna Bajrangi @ Prem Prem Prakash Singh in FIR no. 589/05 though the reason for commission of said offence as stated was to gain political supremacy and not the pecuniary gain. I agree with the contention of Ld. Special PP for state to the extent that if the offence has been committed for the political gain, the same may also be considered for the purpose of invocation of MCOCA. Reliance was placed upon State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagan Gagansigh Nepali @ Jagya & Anr Crl. Appeal no. 20 of 2011 with Crl.
Application No. 798/2011 wherein the issue in question was whether the term other advantage cannot be read as 'ejusdem generis' with the words 'pecuniary benefits' and 'undue economic' . It was observed that there could be various 'unlawful continuing activities' by a member of ' organized crime syndicate' or by any person on behalf of such syndicate which can be for the advantages other than economic or pecuniary. Th following illustration was also quoted. A politician is murdered by a member of organized crime syndicate or gang on its behalf at the behest of rival political leader. In the facts of a given case, this was without any pecuniary or economic consideration, it was to gain an advantage in the nature of political patronage to the said organized crime syndicate by the political leader at whose behest the murder had taken place.
It was concluded that the term 'other advantage' cannot be FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 56/59 read as 'ejusdem generis' with the words 'pecuniary benefits' and 'undue economic' " .
36. It may also be considered that the object of alleged illegal activities or unlawful activities of crime syndicate in question is stated to be the pecuniary gains whereas both the accused namely Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi and Mukhtar Ansari have been found charge sheeted together in committing the offence for the purpose of gaining political supremacy. The cases referred against the accused at s.no. 26, 31, 32, 34, 36 and 37 pertain to FIR no. 116/01, U/s 364A IPC, FIR no. 493/05, U/s 302/120B/506 IPC, FIR no. 589/05 u/s 144/148/149/302/307/404/120B IPC & 7 C.L. Act , FIR no. 1182/09 u/s 307/506/120B IPC, FIR no. 361/09 u/s 302 IPC & 7 C.L.A Act and FIR no. 1866/09 u/s 147/148/149/307/302/325/404/120B IPC & 7 CLA Act, however the charge sheets only pertaining to FIR no. 493/05, 589/05, 1051/07, 1182/09 and 66/09 are on record. . Though there is no specific reference in the charge sheets relied upon by the prosecution with respect to offence committed for pecuniary gain except for FIR no. 589/05 which as admitted was for political gain. However the fact remains that the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation including the statement of victims/their relatives in the previously registered case where the accused had been charge sheeted as well as where the complaints had not been lodged by the victims categorically state about the extortion demands by accused Mukhtar Ansari as well alongwith FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 57/59 other accused persons of the instant matter. It is reiterated on behalf of prosecution that at the time of registration of FIR and also where the accused had been charge sheeted, the victim/ their relatives/ the witnesses did not speak about motive of the crime because of threat of accused or for lack of knowledge, who have now come forward. Though it may also be correct that Mukhtar Ansari has not been previously charge sheeted in any of the offence within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts except for the cases listed at s.no. 12 & 13 which had been committed in the year 1993 i.e. much prior to consideration zone of preceding ten years. However the fact remains that, here the charge pressed against accused Mukhtar Ansari is with respect to his membership of the crime syndicate and it would be suffice if the prosecution is able to show on record the activities of crime syndicate which has now spread its wing within the territories of NCT of Delhi also, if the prosecution is found able to place material on record to prima faice come to the conclusion with respect to membership of accused Mukhtar Ansari in the crime syndicate, the same would be suffice for framing of charge against him as well even in absence of any pending or previously filed cases against him within the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. As already observed, the statements of witnesses which had been recorded during the course of investigation speak volumes about involvement of accused Mukhtar Ansari alongwith other accused persons with respect to the extortion demands and even at the cost of repetition, it may be stated that veracity of the statements of FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 58/59 witnesses recorded during the investigation is yet to be tested at the peril of trial and neither can be discarded nor discredited at the stage of framing of charge.
37. Accordingly , having discussed as above, prima facie case u/s 3 (1)(ii) of MCOC Act is made out against accused Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi, whereas prima facie case u/s 3(2) of MCOC Act is made out against accused Iftikar Ahmed and Miraz Ahmed as well as prima facie case u/s 3 (4) of MCOC Act is made out against accused Mukhtar Ansari.
(SAVITA RAO)
Additional Sessions Judge01 (North)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Announced in the open court today i.e. on 03.5.2012
FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 59/59
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAVITA RAO
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01, NORTH, DELHI.
FIR No. 66/09
PS: Special Cell
State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi etc.
CHARGE
I, Savita Rao, Additional Sessions Judge01, North/Delhi do hereby charge you accused (1) Meraz Ahmed S/o Late Sh. Jalaluddin Khan aged about 45 years R/o E435, Ashok Vihar Colony, P.S. Jaitpura, Varanasi, U.P. and you accused (2) Iftekhar Ahmed @ Babloo S/o Sh. Mukhtyar Ahmed, aged about 44 years, R/o J8/50, DIGIA, P.S. Jaitpura, Varanasi, U.P. Present address: H. No. 101, First Floor, Ayesha Appt. Samad Nagar, Bhiwandi, Thane , Maharashtra as under :
That you both conspired or attempted to commit or advocate, abet or knowingly facilitated the commission of organized crime by accused Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi and you both thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(2) of MCOC Act, as extended to NCT of Delhi and within the cognizance of this court.
I therefore direct you both be tried by this court for the aforesaid charges.
ASJ01/North/Delhi 3.5.2012 Abovesaid charge has been read over and explained to the accused who are questioned as follows:
Q. Have you heard and understood the abovesaid charges?
A Yes.
Q. Do you accused Meraz Ahmed plead guilty or claim trial?
A. I do not plead guilty and claim trial.
FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 60/59
..2..
Q. Do you accused Iftekhar Ahmed plead guilty or claim trial?
A. I do not plead guilty and claim trial.
RO&AC
(SAVITA RAO)
ASJ01 (NORTH)/DELHI
3.05.2012
FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 61/59
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAVITA RAO
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01, NORTH, DELHI.
FIR No. 66/09
PS: Special Cell
State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi etc.
CHARGE
I, Savita Rao, Additional Sessions Judge01, North/Delhi do hereby charge you accused Mukhtar Ansari S/o Sh. Subhanullah Ansari aged about 53 years, R/o Village Mohamaddabad, District Gazipur, U.P. , Present Address: 111, Darzi Mohalla, Ward No. 2, Yusufpur, P.S. Mohamadabad, Gazipur, U.P. & House no. 107, B Block, Darul Shafa, Lucknow, U.P. as under:
That before or at the time of registration of this case, you were found to be the member of an organized crime syndicate of Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi who was found committing organized crime reported vide this FIR no. 66/2009 and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 3 (4) of MCOC Act, as extended to NCT of Delhi and within the cognizance of this court.
I therefore direct you be tried by this court for the aforesaid charge.
ASJ01/North/Delhi 3.5.2012 Abovesaid charge has been read over and explained to the accused who is questioned as follows:
Q. Have you heard and understood the abovesaid charges?
A Yes.
Q. Do you plead guilty or claim trial?
A. I do not plead guilty and claim trial.
RO&AC
(SAVITA RAO)
ASJ01 (NORTH)/DELHI
3.05.2012
FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 62/59
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAVITA RAO
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01, NORTH, DELHI.
FIR No. 66/09
PS: Special Cell
State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi etc.
CHARGE
I, Savita Rao, Additional Sessions Judge01, North/Delhi do hereby charge you accused Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi, S/o Sh. Paras Nath, Aged about 44 years, R/o Village Kaseru Pure Dayal, Jaunpur, U.P. , Present Address: C102, Siddhi Vinayak Society, Malad West , Mumbai as under:
That you being the member of organized crime syndicate have indulged in continuing unlawful activities in organized manner singly or jointly as a member of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate by using violence, threat of violence, intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or other undue economic advantages and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1) (ii) of MCOC Act, as extended to NCT of Delhi and within the cognizance of this court.
I therefore direct you be tried by this court for the aforesaid charges.
ASJ01/North/Delhi 3.5.2012 Abovesaid charge has been read over and explained to the accused who are questioned as follows:
Q. Have you heard and understood the abovesaid charges?
A Yes.
Q. Do you plead guilty or claim trial?
A. I do not plead guilty and claim trial.
RO&AC
(SAVITA RAO)
ASJ01 (NORTH)/DELHI
3.05.2012
FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 63/59
FIR No. : 66/2009
P.S.: Special Cell
State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi etc.
03.05.2012
Present : Special PP Sh. Rajiv Mohan for the state.
All the accused in J/C.
Accused Mukhtar Ansari produced from J/C.
Counsel Sh. Deepak Sharma for accused Mukhtar Ansari and Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi.
Counsel Sh. R.P. Tyagi for accused Iftikar Ahmed.
Vide separate order announced in the open court, prima facie case u/s 3 (1)(ii) of MCOC Act is made out against accused Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi, whereas prima facie case u/s 3(2) of MCOC Act is made out against accused Iftikar Ahmed and Miraz Ahmed as well as prima facie case u/s 3 (4) of MCOC Act is made out against accused Mukhtar Ansari. Charge framed against all the accused persons accordingly to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Put up for PE for 22.5.2012 and 24.5.2012. Witnesses at s.no. 54, 34 & 14 be summoned for 22.5.2012. Witnesses at s.no. 32, 36, 35 and 13 be summoned for 24.5.2012.
An application has also been received from Ld. CMM, Delhi for permission for production of accused Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi before the Special Judge, Gangster Act, Varanasi, U.P. Since permission is being sought for production of accused before Special Judge, Gangsters Act, this court has no objection if the accused is produced before Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Varanasi, U.P. but it is made clear that accused shall not be produced in any other case, in case of clash of the date fixed before this court.
The abovesaid be conveyed to Ld. CMM. Put up for date fixed.
(SAVITA RAO)
ASJ01/NORTH/DELHI/03.05.2012
FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 64/59
FIR No. : 66/2009, P.S. Special Cell 65/59