Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Iqbal Gazi on 15 October, 2024
CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015
State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc.
SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur
DLNE010009242015
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
INDEX
Sl. HEADINGS Page
No. Nos.
1 Description of Case & Memo of Parties 2
2 The case set up by the Prosecution 2-6
3 Charges 6-9
4 Description of Prosecution Evidence 9-39
5 Plea of accused under Section 351 Cr.P.C. 39-44
6 Arguments of Prosecution & Defence 44-68
Appreciation of Law, Facts & Evidence
7 Law Provisions and Legal Principles 68-77
8 Period of Preceding 10 Years and Nature of Past Cases 77-78
9 Effect of Decision in Past Cases 78-79
10 Third Instance of Organised Crime 79-83
11 Sanction 83-84
12 Confession 84-86
13 Conclusion and Decision 86
Digitally signed
by PULASTYA
Page 1 of 86 PULASTYA(Pulastya Pramachala)
PRAMACHALA
PRAMACHALA
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Date: 2024.10.15
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
16:27:09 +0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015
State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc.
SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur
Sessions Case No. : 45052/2015
Under Section : 3(1), 3(2), 3(3) & 3(4) MCOC Act
Police Station : Seelampur
FIR No. : 351/2013
CNR No. : DLNE01-000924-2015
In the matter of: -
STATE
VERSUS
1. MOHD. IQBAL GAZI
(Since proceedings abated against him vide order dated )
S/o. Late Asloop,
R/o. H.No. K-287,
New Seelampur, Delhi.
2. MOHD. UMAR @ PAU
S/o. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi,
R/o. H.No. K-288, New Seelampur, Delhi-53.
3. KAMAL @ KAMALUDDIN @ BILAL
S/o. Late Mohd. Iqbal Gazi,
R/o. K-287, K-Block, New Seelampur, Delhi-53
4. MOHD. JAMAL @ RANJHA
S/o. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi,
R/o. H.No. K-288, New Seelampur, Delhi-53.
...Accused Persons
Date of Institution : 18.04.2015
Date of reserving judgment : 07.10.2024
Date of pronouncement : 15.10.2024
Decision : All accused are Acquitted.
(Section 481 BNSS complied with by all the accused persons.)
JUDGMENT
THE CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION
1. The above-named accused persons have been charge-sheeted by the police for having committed offences punishable under Section 3(2) & 3(4) MCOC Act.
Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 2 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya PRAMACHALA Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East PRAMACHALA District, Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma 16:27:17 Courts, Delhi +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc.
SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur
2. Briefly stated, genesis of this case lies in an order passed by the court of ld. Special Judge (MCOCA)/Additional Session Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, on 29.07.2013. This order was passed on the application filed by complainant Mohd. Mobin under Section 9 of MCOCA read with Section 319 of Cr.P.C., in FIR No. 18/2009, U/s. 3(2)(4) MCOCA, PS Seelampur, titled as State v. Mohd. Afjal. This application was filed for taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 3(2)(4) of MCOCA, against Iqbal Gazi (since deceased), Mohd. Jamal @ Ranjha, Mohd. Umar @ Pau and Kamaluddin @ Kamal, with allegations of their involvement in organized crime and continuing unlawful activities.
3. Vide afore-said order dated 29.07.2013, ld. Special Judge (MCOCA)/ASJ was pleased to direct the SHO, PS Seelampur to register an FIR. Ld. Special Judge (MCOCA)/ASJ also directed that the investigation would be carried by ACP, Sub Division, Seelampur in terms of Section 23(1)(b) of the MCOCA, 1999.
4. The above-mentioned order dated 29.07.2013 was challenged by one of the accused namely Iqbal Gazi (since deceased) under Section 12 of MCOCA before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide Criminal Appeal No. 1045/2013 and Criminal M.A. 12384/2013, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.01.2015.
5. In compliance of above-mentioned order dated 29.07.2013, SHO, PS Seelampur sent a proposal along with list of previous involvements of the accused persons, to Addl. C.P., North-East District, Delhi to take action under the provision of Section 3 of MCOCA, 1999 against them.
Digitally signed by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
Page 3 of 86 PRAMACHALA (Pulastya
Date: Pramachala)
ASJ-03,2024.10.15
North-East District,
16:27:26
Karkardooma +0530
Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015
State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc.
SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur
6. Thereafter, office of the Addl. C.P. (N/E) issued a Notice No. 9294 dated 14.08.2013, thereby granting approval to SHO, PS Seelampur, to investigate the case against the accused persons under MACOC Act. Consequently, on the basis of rukka, present FIR No. 351/2013 was registered on 14.08.2013 under Section 3(2) & (4) of MCOCA, by W/SI Marry Rose at PS Seelampur. After registration of the case, the investigation was assigned to Sh. Chander Kant Talwar, the then ACP, Seelampur.
7. During the course of investigation, IO collected inputs about the properties allegedly owned by the accused persons, out of the pecuniary gains from the activities of the crime syndicate. Thereafter, on his transfer the investigation of the case was entrusted to Sh. Jagbir Singh Malik, who took over the charge of ACP/Seelampur.
8. Sh. Jagbir Singh Malik collected some certified copies of the cognizance orders passed in other cases against the accused persons. He also gathered information about some properties allegedly owned by the accused persons, out of the pecuniary gains from the activities of the crime syndicate. He wrote letters to various civic agencies about the ownership of these properties and deployed sources to collect specific information about the properties. On transfer of Sh. Jagbir Singh Malik, the investigation of the case was entrusted to Sh. Amit Sharma, who took over the charge of ACP/Seelampur.
9. During further investigation, Sh. Amit Sharma wrote letters/issued notices to various civic agencies, collected certified copies of cognizance orders, sent SI Rizwan Khan and SI Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 4 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, 16:28:04 Delhi +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Jitender Kumar to Meerut to verify the ownership of the properties allegedly owned by the accused persons. IO issued notices to the witnesses/occupants of the alleged properties and recorded their statements. On his transfer, the investigation of the case was entrusted to Sh. Anand Kumar Mishra, ACP, Sub Division Seelampur.
10. During the course of investigation, ACP Sh. Anand Kumar Mishra found that accused Kamaluddin @ Kamal and Mohd. Jamal @ Ranjha were listed as desperate criminals of 'bundle A' of PS Seelampur, Delhi. Whereas number of cases had also been registered against the other co-accused namely Mohd. Iqbal Gazi (since expired) and Mohd. Umar @ Pau. One of their accomplices i.e. Mohd. Afzal had already been convicted in Case FIR No. 18/09 u/s 3(2) (4) MCOC Act, PS Seelam Pur, Delhi. IO collected verification report from Sub-Registrar IV, Seelampur Delhi of some of the properties.
11. IO applied for the production warrant of the accused Kamaluddin @ Kamal and Mohd. Umar @ Pau who were in judicial custody in other cases. Said application was allowed for their interrogation in the Tihar Jail itself. On 17.11.2014 IO interrogated and formally arrested both accused in Tihar Jail with the prior approval of ld. Special Judge.
12. IO also sent a proposal for announcement of reward on the arrest of accused Mohd. Jamal @ Ranjha and on the said proposal, Commissioner of Police had declared an award of Rs. 50,000/- on the arrest of accused Mohd. Jamal @ Ranjha. IO recorded statement of Protected Witnesses A to I. Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 5 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03,Date:
North-East District, 2024.10.15 16:28:13 Karkardooma +0530 Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur
13. After completion of investigation, sanction was accorded and on 18.04.2015 a charge sheet was filed against accused Mohd. Iqbal Gazi, Mohd. Umar @ Pau, Kamaluddin @ Kamal @ Bilal and Mohd. Jamal @ Ranjha, for offences punishable under Section 3(2) & 3(4) MCOC Act. Accused Jamal was reported absconding. This chargesheet was filed before the then ld. Special Judge and he took cognizance of offences punishable under Section 3(1), 3(2), 3(3) & 3(4) MCOC Act. Subsequently, accused Jamal was arrested on 20.06.2018 in FIR 548/13 P.S. Seelampur and he was arrested in this case on 21.06.2016. IO collected documents related to some properties in the name of Jamal. After concluding investigation qua Jamal, on 29.08.2016, first supplementary chargesheet was filed against Jamal, before ld. Predecessor Judge of this court. CHARGE
14. On 05.10.2015, charges were framed against accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin @ Bilal, for offences punishable under Section 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and 3(5) of MCOC Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The charges were framed in following terms: -
"That you alongwith your associates/Gang Members indulged in continuing unlawfully activities within the jurisdiction of various Police Station of NCT of Delhi w.e.f. 23.09.1994 and thereafter continuously and due to such activities you committed approximately 27 cognizable offences punishable with more than three years and in many cases / more than one case competent court has taken cognizance and thereby you have committed abovementioned unlawful activities organized crime individually or being a member of organized crime syndicate, by use of violence, threat and also found in possession of unlawful arms with the objective of gaining pecuniary and committed offence of organized crime and punishable under Section 3 (1) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (herein refer to MCOCA) extended to Digitally signed Page 6 of 86 by PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03,Date:
PRAMACHALA North-East District,
2024.10.15
Karkardooma Courts,
16:28:21 +0530Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015
State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc.
SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur NCT of Delhi vide GSR-6(E) dated 2nd January, 2002 and within my cognizance.
Secondly, during the aforesaid period while doing the continuing unlawful activities individually or being the member of organized crime syndicate conspired, abeted or knowingly facilitated or preprated, harbor or concealed the commission of organized crime or its members, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, and thereby you have committed an offence under Section 3 (2) and (3) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (herein refer to MCOCA) extended to NCT of Delhi vide GSR-6(E) dated 2 nd January, 2002 and within my cognizance.
Thirdly, during the aforesaid period while doing the continuing unlawful activities individually or being the member of organized crime syndicate, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits you possessed or acquired unaccountable movable and immovable properties (as mentioned in the chargesheet) and thereby you have committed an offence under Section 3 (4) and (5) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (herein refer to MCOCA) extended to NCT of Delhi vide GSR-6(E) dated 2 nd January, 2002 and within my cognizance."
15. On 05.10.2015, charges were framed against accused Mohd.
Umar @ Pau, for offences punishable under Section 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and 3(5) of MCOC Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The charges were framed in following terms: -
"That you alongwith your associates/Gang Members indulged in continuing unlawfully activities within the jurisdiction of various Police Station of NCT of Delhi w.e.f. 17.09.2007 and thereafter continuously and due to such activities you committed approximately 7 cognizable offences punishable with more than three years and in many cases / more than one case competent court has taken cognizance and thereby you have committed abovementioned unlawful activities/organized crime individually or being a member of organized crime syndicate, by use of violence, threat and also found in possession of unlawful arms with the objective of gaining pecuniary and committed offence of organized crime and punishable under Section 3 (1) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (herein refer to MCOCA) extended to NCT of Delhi vide GSR-6(E) dated 2nd January, 2002 and within my cognizance.
Secondly, during the aforesaid period while doing the continuing unlawful activities individually or being the member of organized crime syndicate conspired, abeted or knowingly facilitated or preprated, harbor or concealed the commission of organized crime or its members, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, and thereby you have committed an offence under Section 3 (2) and (3) of Page 7 of 86 Digitally (Pulastya signed Pramachala) by PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East PULASTYA PRAMACHALADistrict, PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Date:Courts, Delhi 2024.10.15 16:28:29 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (herein refer to MCOCA) extended to NCT of Delhi vide GSR-6(E) dated 2 nd January, 2002 and within my cognizance.
Thirdly, during the aforesaid period while doing the continuing unlawful activities individually or being the member of organized crime syndicate, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits you possessed or acquired unaccountable movable and immovable properties (as mentioned in the chargesheet) and thereby you have committed an offence under Section 3 (4) and (5) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (herein refer to MCOCA) extended to NCT of Delhi vide GSR-6(E) dated 2 nd January, 2002 and within my cognizance."
16. On 05.12.2016, charges were framed against accused Jamal @ Ranjha, for offences punishable under Section 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and 3(5) of MCOC Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The charges were framed in following terms: -
"That you alongwith your associates/Gang Members indulged in continuing unlawfully activities within the jurisdiction of various Police Station of NCT of Delhi w.e.f. 17.09.2007 and thereafter continuously and due to such activities you committed approximately 12 cognizable offences punishable with more than three years and in many cases / more than one case competent court has taken cognizance and thereby you have committed abovementioned unlawful activities organized crime individually or being a member of organized crime syndicate, by use of violence, threat and also found in possession of unlawful arms with the objective of gaining pecuniary and committed offence of organized crime and punishable under Section 3 (1) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (herein refer to MCOCA) extended to NCT of Delhi vide GSR-6(E) dated 2nd January, 2002 and within my cognizance.
Secondly, during the aforesaid period while doing the continuing unlawful activities individually or being the member of organized crime syndicate conspired, abetted or knowingly facilitated or preprated, harbor or concealed the commission of organized crime or its members, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, and thereby you have committed an offence under Section 3 (2) and (3) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (herein refer to MCOCA) extended to NCT of Delhi vide GSR-6(E) dated 2 nd January, 2002 and within my cognizance.
Thirdly, during the aforesaid period while doing the continuing unlawful activities individually or being the member of organized crime syndicate, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits you possessed or acquired unaccountable movable and Digitally signed Page 8 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:28:35 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur immovable properties (as mentioned in the chargesheet) and thereby you have committed an offence under Section 3 (4) and (5) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (herein refer to MCOCA) extended to NCT of Delhi vide GSR-6(E) dated 2 nd January, 2002 and within my cognizance." DESCRIPTION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
17. Several witnesses were dropped on the basis of admission of documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C. and prosecution examined 70 witnesses in support of its case, as per following description: -
Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW1/Sh. He was head Clerk in EDMC, Ex.PW1/A Uma Shankar Shahdara Zone, Delhi. He produced (Letter dated record pertaining to property 19.11.2013) mentioned in letter bearing no.
TAX/Shahdara North 2013/D-1571, dated 19.11.2013, mentioning details of 17 properties and name of tax payers. This letter was issued in reply to letter bearing no. 7230-31/SO ACP/Seelampur dated 04.11.2013, by Sh. Rambir Singh, Dy. Assessor and Collector, Shahdara North Zone. PW1 had performed his duty under supervision of Rambir Singh in aforesaid office and PW1 identified signature of Rambir Singh on letter dt.
19.11.2013.
PW2/Sh. He was Inspector, Circle 65, Ex.PW2/A K.K. Hari Seelampur, Delhi and he produced his (detailed Haran office record during his testimony. report dated PW2 proved detailed report dated 12.11.2013) 12.11.2013 in respect of ration card holder Kaushar Jahan Begum, which was prepared by Food Supply Officer, Sh. Sukhbir Singh.
PW3/Sh. He was UDC in Delhi Jail Board, NE Ex.PW3/A Devi Singh District-III. In compliance of letter (report no.7232-33 dated 04.11.13 issued by pertaining to Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 9 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts,+0530 16:28:56 Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties ACP, detail of water connection water consumer was prepared by Sh. connection); Surender Bhati and Sh. Anil Sharma. Ex.PW3/B This detail was pertaining to property (reply to mentioned in the said letter. Reply of Ex.PW3/A); Sh. Raj Pal Singh, Zonal Revenue Officer/NE-III, to the letter was issued. Ex.PW3/C In compliance of letter no.7309 dated (reply to 20.12.2013, reply was prepared by Sh. letter no. Surender Bhati and Sh. Siya Ram and 7309 daated same was forwarded by Sh. Kalka 20.12.2013) Prasad, Head clerk.
PW4/WSI On 14.08.2013, at about 06:30 PM, Ex.PW4/A Marry Rose during his duty as Duty Officer, Insp. (rukka); & Anand Sagar recorded rukka on the Ex.PW4/B complaint of complainant Mobin. PW4 (Copy of made endorsement on the rukka and FIR) thereafter she registered FIR for offence u/s 3(2), 3(4) of MCOC Act.
PW4 also recorded DD No.34-A regarding registration of this FIR. Investigation of the case was assigned to ACP/Sh. Chandra Kant Talwar.
Rukka and copy of FIR were sent to ACP/Sh. Chandra Kant through Ct.
Samay Singh.
PW5/ Dinesh He along with Kusum Sharma Ex.PW5/A Singh (House prepared report regarding complete (Report Tax clerk) chain of ownership of property i.e. regarding H.No. 6/2, Mehmood Nagar, ward complete no.48, PS Kotwali, Meerut, U.P as chain of well as pertaining to property bearing ownership of H.No. 534, ward no.72. PW5 property no. identified his signature at point A and H.No. 6/2);
that of Kusum Sharma at point B on &
the said report. Ex.PW5/B
PW5 identified signature of Tax and
Superintendent on the documents of Ex.PW5/C the property bearing no. H.No. 6/2, (documents Page 10 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) Digitally signed by PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PULASTYA PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, PRAMACHALA Delhi Date: 2024.10.15 16:29:13 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties Mehmood Nagar, which was in the of aforesaid name of Allauddin s/o Habib @ Tota. property) PW6/ He proved report dated 31.01.2014, Ex.PW6/A Pradeep which was prepared by Dr. S.K. (reported Kumar Sharma, Dy. Director (JJR) Delhi dated Sharma Urban Shelter Improvement Board, 31.01.2014);
East Zone-B. Ex.PW6/B1
PW6 deposed that 15 allotment papers to B19 (15
and copies of 3 papers of site register, allotment
were handed over to IO. List of papers and
allottees & attested copy of survey copies of 3
report were also prepared. papers of site
register); &
Ex.PW6/C &
Ex.PW6/D
(List of
allottees &
attested copy
of survey
report).
PW7/Sh. V.V. In August 2013, he was posted as Ex.PW7/A Chaudhary Addl. Commissioner of Police, North- (order dated East District, Delhi. 14.08.2013 On the basis of proposal of ACP, passed by Seelampur and order dated PW7);
29.07.2013, PW7 accorded approval to Ex.PW7/B
register the FIR against accused (colly)
Kamaluddin @ Kamal and Mohd. (proposal of
Jamal @ Ranjha, Mohd. Umar @ Pau ACP,
u/s 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOC Act. PW7 Seelampur)
passed an order dated 14.08.2013 with direction to Sh. Chander Kant Talwar, the then ACP, Seelampur, to carry out investigations.
PW8/Ms. He was working as Assistant Ex.PW8/A1 Kajal Taneja Programmer in Transport Department. to A14 PW8 proved letters of ACP seeking (colly). details of vehicle registered in the (letters of Digitally signed Page 11 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East PRAMACHALADistrict, PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Date: Delhi 2024.10.15 16:29:20 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties name of accused Kamaluddin, Mohd. ACP seeking Umar and Mohd. Jamal. details of PW8 also brought computer generated vehicles copy of details of vehicle owned by registered in accused Kamal and Umar, which the name of Ex.A-89 (admitted documents). accused persons);
PW8 also proved information report dated 15.12.2014 prepared by Ms. Ex.PW8/B Mamta Sharma, Assistant Programmer (copy of information report dated 15.12.2014) PW9/Ajay Vide letter dated 31.01.2014, ACP Ex.PW9/A Kumar sought ownership record of 15 (report dated properties and a report in this regard. 10.02.2014) On the basis of this letter, a report dated 10.02.2014 was prepared by Sub Registrar IV, Seelampur.
PW10/Ms. A joint report (Ex.PW5/A) was Ex.PW10/A
Kusum furnished by him and PW5/Sh. Dinesh (document
Sharma Singh, in pursuance to letter, wherein pertaining to
ACP had requested to furnish tax of
particulars of house tax of property no. aforesaid
534, Shyam Nagar, Ward no.72, property)
Kotwali, Meerut, U.P.
As per their record, Smt. Shahana
Begum w/o Wahab and Smt. Nasim
w/o Illiyas were owners of afore-said property from 11.07.2014. PW10 identified her signature on the document pertaining to tax of aforesaid property.
PW11/Sh. He was Registration Clerk, Sub Ex.PW11/A Tota Ram Registrar II, Meerut. He had prepared (report of a report pertaining to property no.534, PW11, Shyam Nagar, Ward no.72, Kotwali, pertaining to Meerut, U.P., in pursuance to notice property u/s 91 Cr.P.C. issued by ACP no.534);
Digitally signed Page 12 of 86 (PulastyabyPramachala) PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA KarkardoomaDate:
Courts,2024.10.15 Delhi 16:29:28 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties Seelampur. Ex.PW11/B PW11 handed over to police, certified and copy of transfer deed in favour of Smt. Ex.PW11/C Shahana with site plan and certified (site plan and copy of sale deed in favour of Smt. certified Nasim. He also prepared a report copy of sale pertaining to property no.6/2, deed in Mehmood Nagar, in pursuance to favour of notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. which was issued Smt. Nasim, by ACP Seelampur. respectively) ;& Ex.PW11/D (report of PW11 pertaining to property no.
6/2) PW12/Sh. He was Sub Divisional Officer, PW12/A & Imran Khan Electricity Urban Distribution Sub Ex.PW12/B Division-IV. ACP Seelampur had (letters no. sought information pertaining to house 381 and 382 no.6/2 Mehmood Nagar and house of ACP no.534, Shyam Nagar, vide letters Seelampur, no.381 & 382, from him. Thereafter, respectively) PW12 prepared two reports in Ex.PW12/C pursuance to abovesaid letters. As per and report Ex.PW12/C, electricity Ex.PW12/D connection in the name of Shahana (two reports Begum was in activation and as per of PW12) report Ex.PW12/D, no electricity meter was installed.
PW13/HC Vide order of ACP, reward of Ex.PW13/A Sandeep Rs.50,000/- was announced against (order of Kumar accused Mohd. Jamal @ Ranjha. ACP in PW13 identified signatures of Sh. Riya respect of Mitra Kaushik, ACP on the said order. reward) PW14/HC On 21.10.2014, they along with Ex. PW14/A Suresh IO/ACP Anand Kumar Mishra went to & the house of accused Mohd. Iqbal Gazi Ex.PW14/B Page 13 of 86 Digitally (Pulastya signed Pramachala) by PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East PULASTYA District, PRAMACHALA Karkardooma PRAMACHALA Courts, Delhi Date: 2024.10.15 16:29:36 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties & at H.No.K-288, New Seelampur, (arrest and PW59/Insp. Delhi. PW14 and PW59 witnessed personal M. C. Pandey arrest and personal search of accused search memo Iqbal Gazi and identified his signatures of accused at point A on the respective memos. Iqbal Gazi, respectively.
PW15/Ct. On 27.02.2014, he was on duty as DD Ex.PW15/A Ghanshyam writer in PS Lisari Gate, Meerut and (carbon copy he recorded DD no. 17 in register. of DD no.17) PW16/Sh. On 01.03.2014, he received notices u/s Ex.PW16/A Nishant 91 Cr.P.C. issued by ACP/Seelampur & Sharma in Jalkal Vibhag. PW16 deposed that Ex.PW16/D reply to the said notices was issued by (notices of Sh. Sanjeev Ram Chandra, General ACP, Manager. In Ex.PW16/B, it was Seelampur);
mentioned that water connection was Ex.PW16/B
issued in the name of Shakuntala Devi &
w/o Sh. Kailash Chand. In Ex.PW16/E
Ex.PW16/E, it was mentioned that no (replies of
water connection at H.No. 6/2, Sh. Sanjeev
Mehmood Nagar, Ward no.48 was Ram to
installed. Along with aforesaid reply, afore-said
supporting reports were also prepared. notices); &
Ex.PW16/C
&
Ex.PW16/F
(supporting
reports in
respect of
afore-said
replies)
PW17/Sh. He received a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW17/A
Himanshu issued by ACP/Seelampur in Food & &
Bhardwaj Supply Department, Meerut and reply Ex.PW17/B
to the same was given. In pursuance to (replies to
notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. in connection of notices
H.No. 534, Shyam Nagar, Meerut, U.P, received by
reply was issued. PW17)
Digitally signed
Page 14 of 86 (PulastyabyPramachala)
PULASTYA
PULASTYA
ASJ-03, North-East District,
PRAMACHALA
PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
16:29:44 +0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015
State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc.
SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW18/Sh. On 30.12.2014, he was on duty as DD Ex.PW18/A Vijay Pal writer in PS Kotwali, Meerut and he (carbon copy Singh recorded DD no.26 in register. of DD no.26) PW19/Sh. He deposed that he was doing manufacturing of cooler Zahid @ in a house of Mehmood Nagar, PS Kotwali, Meerut, Javed UP. He used to pay rent of Rs.5000/- per month to one Imran, who was the owner of the said house. He did not support the case of prosecution and he was declared hostile.
PW20/Sh. He deposed that in between 2004 to 2008, he lived Mohd. alongwtih his family in one house at Sham Nagar, Kafeel Munshi jogi wali gali, near Bhopal ki kothi, Meerut, UP. PW20 had taken one shop on rent in H.No. 534, Sham Nagar, near kanjar wala pull, near Shadi Mehal, Meerut, U.P. where he was running a grossery shop. PW20 used to pay rent of Rs. 1200/- per month to Imran who belonged to Bihar.
He did not support the case of prosecution and he was declared hostile.
PW21/SI V. He deposed about Externment order Ex.PW21/B,
Ganesh Bhai passed in respect of accused Kamal @ Ex.PW21/B
Kamaluddin, Umar @ Pau and Jamal and
@ Ranjha and he proved the same. Ex.PW21/C
(Externment
order passed
against
accused
persons.
PW22/Sh. They were Section Officers in BSES. Ex.PW22/A
Sanjay Ray They deposed about reply to notice u/s (reply to
& 91 Cr.PC dated 10.09.2014, as given notice dated
PW34/Sh. Jai by BSES. 10.09.2014);
Prakash They deposed that one letter dated Ex.PW34/A
04.11.2013 addressing to DGM/BSES, &
was issued by ACP and reply to the Ex.PW34/B
said letter was given by BSES. (letter dated
04.11.2013
Digitally signed
Page 15 of 86 by PULASTYA
PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala)
PRAMACHALA
ASJ-03, North-East District,
PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15
Karkardooma Courts,+0530
16:29:51 Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015
State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc.
SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties of ACP and reply to the same, respectively) PW23/ He brought original FIR register for the year 2012 Insp.Brajveer from PS Seelampur, Delhi. He deposed that FIR Singh No.258/12 was part of that record. That FIR was registered by HC Mary Rose, on the basis of endorsement of PW23 on the statement of Mohd. Arif. PW24/HC He brought original FIR bearing no. Ex.PW24/A Sanjeev 254/12 of P.S. Jafrabad. He deposed (certified Kumar that said FIR was registered at about copy of FIR 3.10 a.m on 24.09.2012 on the basis of No.254/12, DD No. 3A. SI Gaurav Chaudhary had PS Jafrabad) made endorsement to get registered FIR for offence 302 IPC.
PW24 identified signatures of then Duty Officer HC Narender at point A on the certified copy of FIR No. 254/12 of P.S. Jafrabad PW25/HC He brought original FIR bearing no. Ex.PW25/A Patil Kumar 238/12 of P.S. New Usmanpur. PW25 (certified deposed that said FIR was registered at copy of FIR about 8.30 p.m on 12.09.2012 on the No.238/12, basis of statement of Smt. Furkana w/o New Bhura for offence 307 r/w 34 IPC and Usmanpur) 25 and 27 Arms Act.
PW26/Sh. He brought case file of FIR No. 60/09 Ex.PW26/A Atul of PS Jafrabad. He compared the to certified copy of chargesheet, FIR, list Ex.PW26/F of accused persons, certified copy of (certified cognizance order dated 23.03.2010, copies of order on charge dated 06.07.2011 and documents charge against four (4) accused pertaining to persons namely Kamaluddin @ FIR No. Kamal, Salim @ Bobby, Javed and 60/2009, PS Guddu, placed in this case file with the Jafrabad) original. He found them to be correct Digitally signed Page 16 of 86 by PULASTYA PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East PRAMACHALA District, Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:29:59 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties certified copies of the original.
PW27/ He proved attested copy of order dated Ex.PW27/A Yogesh 29.07.2013. Said order was passed by (attested Sharma Ld. ASJ Sh. Inderjeet Singh in CC copy of order No.2/13, which was filed by Mohd. dt. 29.07.13 Mobin.
PW28/HC He brought original FIR No. 236/12 of Ex.PW28/A Pramod PS Vivek Vihar and placed the copy of (Copy of FIR Kumar the same. That FIR was registered by No. 236/12 HC Rajender Kumar on 11.08.2012 at of P.S. Vivek about 3.05 p.m. vide DD No. 22A for Vihar) offence 394, 397, r/w 34 IPC and 25 and 27 of Arms Act. Said FIR was registered on the statement of one Vinod Kumar.
PW29/HC He brought original FIR No.740/2007 Ex.PW29/A Devender of PS Yamuna Vihar/Gokal Puri and (certified Singh proved certified copy of the same. copy of FIR No. 740/07) PW30/Mirza Ittaddar Baig @ Mirza, PW31/Sagir Ahmed, PW32/Javed, PW35/Naushad Alam, PW37/Adheer Kumar Gupta and PW38/Akhtar Ali, deposed that they were the tenants and they used to pay rent to accused Iqbal Gazi (since expired), his wife and Sakeela w/o Haji Afzal, respectively.
PW33/ He is complainant and he deposed that Ex.PW33/A,
Mohd. accused Iqbal Gazi (since expired) was Ex.PW33/B
Mobin his real maternal uncle, who was &
residing alongwith his family in K- Ex.PW33/C
Block, Seelampur. (complaint
He further deposed that accused Umar dated
@ Pau, Kamal and Mohd. Jamal @ 16.05.2013
Ranjha were his cousin brothers and made by
they all were sons of accused Iqbal PW33,
Gazi (since expired). There was a affidavit and
dispute between accused Kamal and list of
his father-in-law namely Kallu on witnesses,
some money transaction. His brother respectively)
Yaseen refused to intervene in the said Page 17 of 86 Digitally signed (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East PULASTYA District, PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Date:
PRAMACHALA Courts,2024.10.15
Delhi
16:30:07 +0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015
State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc.
SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties matter.
Thereafter, on 10.02.2011 at about 8 PM, when PW33 reached the house of his uncle Kallu, PW33 had seen blood oozing out from the nose of his brother Yaseen. At that time, accused Kamal was present there and PW33 had seen a pistol in his hand. When PW33 told his brother as to what was the matter, then his brother told him that Kamal had given fist blow on his nose.
Thereafter, an altercation took place between him and accused Kamal.
PW33 further deposed that accused Iqbal Gazi (since expired) and his sons namely Pau, Ranjha, Kamal and Afzal were not doing any business. Accused Kamal indulged in the business of smack and he was running this business in J-block jhuggis, Seelampur. Accused Umar @ Pau and Ranjha indulged in satta business in the area of Trans Yamuna. PW33 further deposed that accused Umar, Kamal and Jamal used to earn money per day by extortion and from the afore-said businesses. Accused Iqbal Gazi (since expired) used to purchase property in Delhi and Meerut, U.P. Accused Kamal was involved in 5-6 criminal cases in Bulandshahar, U.P and approximately 28 cases in Delhi; whereas accused Jamal @ Ranjha was involved in 12-13 cases in Delhi and accused Umar was involved in 7-8 cases in Delhi.
PW33 further deposed that in the month of July 2012, accused Kamal demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- per Digitally signed by Page 18 of 86 PULASTYA(Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East PRAMACHALA District, Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:30:20 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties month from him as protection money, but he refused. On 28.07.2012, PW33 alongwith his brother was going to home on foot and when they were passing by K block road in front of house of accused persons bearing no. 288, accused Kamal aimed pistol towards PW33 and demanded money from them. Accused Iqbal Gazi (since expired) also threatened him. Accused Umar @ Pau and Ranjha took out their pistols and fired at PW33. Accused Iqbal Gazi (since expired) and Jamal @ Ranjha got bail from the court in the cases, which had been lodged by PW33 and his family. Accused Iqbal (since expired) and Jamal started harassing PW33 and putting pressure to settle the aforesaid criminal cases. On 11.02.2011, accused Pau and Kamal came at house of PW33 in his absence and extended threat to kill his brother Bhura.
On 16.05.2013, he had moved complaint for taking cognizance u/s 3(2) & (4) of MCOC Act against accused Iqbal Gazi (since expired), Mohd. Jamal @ Ranjha, Mohd. Umar @ Pau, one Salim @ Bobby and Kamaluddin @ Kamal. The said complaint was supported by his affidavit and list of witnesses.
During interrogation by police, PW33 furnished details of around 20 houses of accused persons.
PW33 correctly identified accused Mohd. Umar @ Pau, Jamal @ Ranjha and Kamal before the court. Since accused Iqbal Gazi (since expired) was Digitally signed Page 19 of 86 (Pulastyaby Pramachala) PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA KarkardoomaDate:
Courts, Delhi 2024.10.15 16:30:30 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties not produced before court, his identity was not disputed by his counsel.
PW36/Sh. He deposed that letter dated 31.10.2013 was issued by Gopal Dutt ACP Seelampur addressing to Sub Registrar (Revenue Department) Seelampur. It was received in his office on 01.11.2013. He further deposed that reply to the aforesaid letter was issued by Sub Registrar IV Sh. B.L. Bairwa, who stated therein that no information without specific registration no. etc. could be given. PW39/ASI He identified signatures of Special Ex.PW39/A, Dinesh Pal Commissioner of Police/Sh. S. N. Ex.PW39/B Singh Shrivastava and Dy. Commissioner of and Police/ Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, on the Ex.PW39/C photocopies of letters issued from (photocopies Special Cell. of letters issued form Special Cell).
PW40/Sh. He proved copy of order dated Ex.PW40/A Dharmender 10.11.2014, vide which IO/ACP (OSR) (order Maurya Anand Kumar Mishra approached Jail dated Superintendent; entry of ACP in 10.11.2014); register no.16A regarding his visit; Ex.PW40/B entry regarding production of accused (OSR) (copy Umar @ Pau before concerned court of entry of and thereafter sending him for police ACP in remand, was made in register. register no. PW40 was deputed by Superintendent 16A); Jail No. 8-9, Tihar Jail, vide a letter. Ex.PW40/C One application was moved by IO, (OSR) (entry seeking production of accused Umar regarding @ Pau before concerned court and production same was received by Superintendent. of accused Umar);
Ex.PW40/D (OSR) (deputation letter of Digitally signed Page 20 of 86 by PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma 16:30:38 Courts, Delhi +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW40); & Ex.PW40/E (OSR) (application of IO seeking production of accused Umar before concerned court) PW41/Sh. He had been working in the office of Ex.PW41/A Mukesh Pal SDM, Seelampur for the last 15 years. (OSR) (copy PW41 filed copy of register having of register dispatch number 340. He identified having writing and signature of Sh. L.S. dispatch Yadav, the then SDM, Seelampur in no.340); & official capacity, on reply of RTI Ex.PW41/B bearing no. (reply of RTI F-1/SDM/Seelampur/RTI/2015/340 bearing no. dated 16.04.2015. As per reply, F-1/SDM/ photocopy of affidavit alongwith Seelampur/R nomination of Shakeela Begum dated TI/2015/340 23.03.12 was given to ACP Sub dt. 16.04.15) Division, Seelampur.
PW42/Sh. He was Ahlmad in the court of Ms. Ex.PW42/A Ashwani Manjushah Wadhwa, ld. ASJ-03/ (OSR) Kumar Shahdara, Delhi. He produced certified (certified copy of chargesheet of case FIR No. copy of 189/10, PS Jafrabad, u/s 307/34 IPC. chargesheet of FIR No. 189/10, PS Jafrabad) PW43/Sh. He deposed that after going through Ex.PW43/A Sanjay the present case file, report submitted (sanction for Beniwal by ACP and also the documents filed prosecution in support of the prosecution case on of accused 16.04.2015, he accorded sanction for persons) prosecution of accused Kamaluddin @ Digitally signed Page 21 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East PRAMACHALADistrict, PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Date: Delhi 2024.10.15 16:30:47 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties Kamal, Mohd. Jamal @ Ranjha, Iqbal Ghazi (since expired) and Mohd.
Umar @ Pau for offences u/s 3(2) & 3(4) of MCOC Act 1999, in compliance of section 23(2) of MCOC Act, 1999.
PW44/Sh. He brought the case file of FIR No. Ex.PW44/A Ram Gopal 236/12, PS Vivek Vihar. He compared (copy of Sharma certified copy of charge sheet of FIR charge sheet No. 236/12, PS Vivek Vihar, with the of FIR No. original and found it to be the correct 236/12, PS copy of the original. Vivek Vihar) PW45/ He had a building material shop at Ex.PW45/A Protected New Seelampur, Delhi. He knew (statement of witness B accused Jamal @ Ranjha and PW45, Kamaluddin @ Kamal. He had heard recorded u/s. the name of accused Umar @ Pau. On 164 Cr.P.C.) or around 24.12.2014, he used to receive telephonic calls from accused Kamaluddin @ Kamal regarding a house belonging to accused Kamaluddin @ Kamal, who wanted to meet PW45. When PW45 avoided to meet accused Kamaluddin @ Kamal due to his bad reputation in the area, he started demanding a sum of Rs.10 lacs from PW45. In case of refusal to pay the amount, PW45 was threatened to be killed. PW45 received a phone call from accused Jamal Ranjha, who threatened PW45 and reiterated demand of Rs.10 lacs.
PW45 deposed that on receiving a call from his wife, he got scared because accused Ranjha and Kamaluddin @ Kamal were known criminals of the area and were involved in land grabbing and seeking protection money. Thereafter, PW45 approached Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 22 of 86 PULASTYA(PulastyaPRAMACHALA Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East PRAMACHALA Date: District, Karkardooma2024.10.15 Courts, Delhi 16:30:58 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties the police for his protection as well as protection of his family and he told the mobile number of accused Ranjha and Kamaluddin @ Kamal to the police.
Police had taken PW45 to the court for recording of his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
PW46/ He had a car repair workshop Ex.PW46/A Protected adjoining DCP office on the main (photocopies witness D road. He knew accused Kamaluddin @ of Kamal, Jamal @ Ranjha and Umar @ documents Pau and his other family members. executed by PW46 had a house bearing no. B-55, PW46 in New Seelampur and in the year 2006, favour of local property dealer Mustafa Bhai Ms. came to him regarding purchase of his Tasleem); & house and Mustafa Bhai offered sale Ex.PW46/B price of Rs.30 lacs. Mustafa Bhai told (statement PW46 that accused Kamaluddin @ u/s. 164 Kamal was purchasing the same and as Cr.P.C. of such he paid Rs.10,000/- to PW46 as PW46) bayana. Thereafter, one Kalu paid the remaining payment, whom PW46 did not know prior to the deal.
Thereafter, accused Kamaluddin @ Kamal came to PW46 and told that transfer papers of aforesaid house were to be made in the name of his sister Tasleem. Photocopies of documents executed by PW46 in favour of Ms. Tasleem. PW46 admitted his signature on his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
In his re-examination by prosecutor, PW46 said that Kalu and accused Kamal were the same persons.
PW47/ He knew accused Kamaluddin Kamal, Ex.PW47/A Protected Jamal @ Ranjha, Umar @ Pau and (statement Witness G their other family members being u/s. 164 resident of his area (correctly Cr.P.C. of Digitally signed Page 23 of 86 by PULASTYA PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, 16:31:08 Delhi +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties identified). PW47);
PW47 deposed that he was taken by Ex.PW47/B Amir and Rizwan to Meerut. There (photocopy they showed him a plot admeasuring of registered about 250-300 sq.yards sought to be sale deed purchased for a Mosque (Masjid). dated They also asked him to give financial 25.03.2009) help (Chanda) in this regard. PW47 wanted to do Jakat (religious help) in the name of his deceased mother.
Therefore, PW47 agreed to get the papers of the said plot to be made in the joint name of himself, Amir and Rizwan.
PW47 identified his signature at point A on his statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC. He also identified his signatures on every page of photocopy of registered sale deed dated 25.03.2009.
PW48/ He was working at BTS Travels and Ex.PW48/A Protected Educational Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., (statement Witness H Nehru Market, Opp. Aggarwal u/s. 164 Bikaneri Sweets, New Seelampur, Cr.P.C. of Delhi. Earlier, the name of the said PW48) shop was 'Bittoo Travels'. PW48 knew accused Kamaluddin @ Kamal, Jamal @ Ranjha as well as Umar @ Pau and their other family members being resident of his area (correctly identified).
PW48 deposed that on 25.03.2009, he alongwith Amir and Shakir had gone to Meerut to a plot of land for doing social work. He had his share of funds with him to purchase the plot. Amir Bhai showed him a plot admeasuring 250-275 sq. yards and told the cost thereof as Rs.9 lacs. The said plot was purchased from one Aftab and PW48 Digitally signed Page 24 of 86 (Pulastya byPramachala) PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Date: Delhi 2024.10.15 16:31:18 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties had contributed about Rs.1.50 to Rs.1.75 lacs. The sale deed was registered in the joint name of himself, Shakir and Amir (Ex.PW47/B).
PW48 identified his signature at point A on his statement u/s 164 Cr.PC.
PW49/ He deposed that accused Kamal had purchased a plot Protected of land measuring 125 sq. yards situated at Mehmood witness E Nagar in front of Lisari Gate PS, Meerut, U.P., from him, about 16 years ago. The total sale consideration of the plot was fixed at Rs.18 lacs, out of which Rs.4 lacs in cash was paid to accused Kamaluddin and the balance amount of Rs.14 lacs was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed in his favour within a period of 6 months.
Upon receipt of Rs.4 lacs, PW49 handed over the possession of the plot of land to accused Kamal and thereafter, accused Kamal had let out the same to one Nazim.
Thereafter accused Kamal was arrested and the sale deed could not be executed by him in his favour. PW49 visited Kotwali office in Meerut, but he did not get back the possession of the plot of land. The said plot of land had been sold by Danish and Noor Mohammad (brothers in law of accused Kamal) about 6 months ago to Naushad, who was Jeweller in Bhagat Singh Market, Meerut, U.P. Said brothers-in-law of accused Kamal told PW49 that accused Kamal was about to be released on parole and the balance sale consideration of Rs.14 lacs would be deposited by accused Kamal, in court and thereafter, PW49 would get the said amount from court. PW49 had not received the said balance amount of Rs.14 lacs. He identified his signature at points A1, A2 and A3 on the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., PW49 identified accused Kamal, as the person to whom he had sold the above plot of land. PW50/ He deposed that he used to sell grocery items Digitally signed by Page 25 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA ASJ-03,PULASTYA PRAMACHALA North-East District, PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2024.10.15 16:31:26 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties Protected including Pan (Beetle leaves) in Shop bearing No. K- witness C 288, New Seelampur, Delhi. He had taken on rent the said shop from Iqbal Gazi. In the year 2015, PW50 was paying a rent of Rs.3,000/- per month to him for the said shop.
PW50 deposed that as per telephonic talk with Gilfam, he took Rs.10,000/- from a person and handed over the same to Haji Liyakat Ali. PW50 knew both Gulfam as well as Haji Liyakat Ali. He identified his signatures on his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. He did not support the case of prosecution and he was declared hostile.
PW51/Afzal In the year 2014, he was residing at 27/224, double Ali storey, New Seelampur, as a tenant. He was paying rent of Rs.2000/- to owner of house namely Hazi Afzal.
PW52/Dr. In July 2016, he was posted as DCP, Ex.PW52/A Rishi Pal East District and on 01.07.2016, (colly 4 IO/Sh. Anand Kumar Mishra came to pages) his office and informed him that one of (proceeding the accused in this case i.e. accused of recording Jamal @ Ranjha wanted to make confessional confessional statement and PW52 was statement of assigned this work on the approval of accused Joint Commissioner of Police, Eastern Jamal); & Range. On the same day, accused Ex.PW52/B Jamal @ Ranjha was produced before (forwarding him. PW52 asked IO to go out of his letter to ld. chamber and called his another staff CMM/NE) Ct. Anuj in the chamber and handed over custody of accused Jamal @ Ranjha to him. On query by PW52, accused Jamal @ Ranjha told him that he was in custody in MCOCA case alongwith his other family members. Accused Jamal @ Ranjha also told PW52 that he was before him to make confessional statement and he knew that such statement could be used Digitally signed by Page 26 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East PRAMACHALADistrict, PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Date: Delhi 2024.10.15 16:31:35 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties against him in the case. Accused Jamal @ Ranjha further told PW52 that he was making confessional statement voluntarily. Thereafter, PW52 called SHO, Mandawali to his office and directed him to keep accused Jamal @ Ranjha in his PS and also directed not to allow IO or any official to meet accused Jamal @ Ranjha during custody.
On 02.07.2016 on production of accused Jamal @ Ranjha before PW52, accused Jamal @ Ranjha told him that he was willing to make confessional statement. PW52 called HC Pravesh Rathi in his chamber, to type the statement of accused Jamal @ Ranjha and PW52 started recording his statement. The said statement was read over before accused Jamal @ Ranjha, after taking print of that statement. The statement was signed by accused Jamal @ Ranjha and thereafter PW52 signed the same. A proceeding of recording this statement was also prepared, wherein PW52 mentioned all the steps taken by him and he signed that proceeding as well. IO was called inside the chamber of this witness and asked him to take accused Jamal @ Ranjha. A print of the proceedings taken place on 01.07.2016 was also taken and signed by this witness and this proceeding alongwith aforesaid statement was sent to ld. CMM in sealed condition. PW52 identified his signature on the proceeding and on the forwarding letter to ld. CMM/NE.
PW53/ He deposed that in the year 2015, he Digitally signed Page 27 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03,PRAMACHALA North-East District, PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Date:Courts, Delhi 2024.10.15 16:31:43 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties Protected used to work of scrap materials and witness (J) prior to that, he used to manufacture auto parts. Around 17-18 years back, he alongwith 2 more friends had purchased a plot at Kanjerwala pul, Meerut, U.P., vide a sale deed (Ex.PW47/B). They all had invested their money to purchase aforesaid plot and they had purchased it out of their sweet will.
In Delhi, PW53 had purchased a property No. O-16, Sunder Nagri around 15-16 years. This property was purchased in his name for around Rs.2.50 lacs and he had invested his own money to purchase this property. PW53 sold this property around 10 years back for about 4.50 lacs.
PW54/ASI On 03.07.2016 on the instructions of Ex.PW54/A Sanjay Singh Sh. Anand Mishra, the then ACP, he (seizure accompanied him alongwith other memo of police staff, to the house of accused documents Jamal @ Ranjha in Seelampur. recovered at Accused Jamal @ Ranjha took them to the instance the first floor of that house and took of accused out certain documents from one Jamal) almirah and he handed over the same to ACP, which were seized vide seizure memo. PW54 identified his signature on the said seizure memo.
Thereafter, accused Jamal @ Ranjha was brought back to the PS Seelampur and lodged in lock up.
PW54 correctly identified accused Jamal @ Ranjha, who was present in the court.
PW55/Insp. On 20.06.2016, he had arrested Ex.PW55/A Ram Avtar accused Jamal @ Ranjha in FIR No. & 548/13, PS Seelampur. Accused Jamal Ex.PW55/B Digitally signed Page 28 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East PRAMACHALADistrict, PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Date:Courts, Delhi 2024.10.15 16:31:52 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties Tyagi @ Ranjha was also wanted accused in (arrest and the present case. personal On 21.06.2016, IO of this case search memo ACP/Sh. Anand Mishra interrogated of accused and arrested accused Jamal @ Ranjha Jamal, vide arrest memo and personal search respectively) memo. PW55 identified his signature on the said memos. Accused Jamal @ Ranjha was produced before the court and he was sent to J/C in FIR No. 548/13. On 26.06.2016, accused Jamal @ Ranjha was again interrogated by IO/ACP Sh. Anand Mishra in his presence.
PW56/Retd. On 29.07.2013 vide order Ex.PW56/A ACP Anand (Ex.PW27/A) received from the court (rukka Sagar of Sh. Inderjeet Singh, the then ASJ- prepared by 03/NE, he had given direction for PW56) registration of a case against accused Iqbal Gazi (since expired) and others under MCOCA.
PW56 had sent a request letter (Ex.PW7/B) to Addl. CP for according approval for registration of FIR under MCOCA.
On 14.08.2013, on receipt of approval from Addl. CP, he prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. Thereafter on the directions of Addl. CP, the original rukka with copy of FIR were sent to Sh. Chandra Kant Talwar, ACP/Seelampur, for investigation.
PW57/Retd. On 14.08.2013, he received copy of FIR alongwith ACP rukka and other materials of this case for investigation Chander and the investigation remained with him upto Kant 02.09.2013. PW58/ He was running a salon/barber shop at B-224, double Mehboob storey, New Seelampur, Jama Masjid and he had taken Digitally signed Page 29 of 86 by PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA ASJ-03,PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA North-East District, Date: Courts, Karkardooma 2024.10.15 Delhi 16:32:02 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc.
SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties Ahmed this shop on a monthly rent of Rs.1800/-p.m., which he used to pay to accused Iqbal Gazi (since expired). PW60/Retd. On the directions of the then DCP/NE, Ex.PW60A ACP Jagbir he took up investigation of this case on to Singh Malik 18.09.2013 and remained IO upto Ex.PW60/G 18.12.2013. (The letters He sent letter to SHO, PS Seelampur, sent to DC, seeking record of previous EDMC;
involvement of accused persons in the Food and criminal cases. He also sent letters to Supply Delhi Jal Board, Delhi Electricity officer; Board and accessor of properties ZRO/NE-3; (MC), so as to ascertain the ownership ZRO/NE-2; of the properties, which were alleged Director JJR; to be acquired by the accused persons DGM, from the proceeds of the crime. He Commercial sent letters to Food and Supply officer, BSES; Sub so as to seek particulars of the persons Registrar, for whom ration cards were issued at Revenue the address of alleged properties of Department, accused persons. He requested Delhi Seelampur, Jal Board and Delhi Electricity Board, respectively) to furnish the particulars of the persons in whose names the water meter as well as electricity meters were installed in those properties. He had received replies from some agencies including electricity authority, food and supply authority, Sub Registrar. The reply sent by ZRO (DJB);
RO/NE-3; and DGM, BSES are Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW34/B. PW61/Majid He deposed that in the year 2013, he was working in a dhaba at K-288, New Seelampur, Delhi. This dhaba was being run by Mubarak. He was being paid Rs.3000/- p.m. as remuneration.
He did not support the case of prosecution and he was declared hostile.
Digitally signed Page 30 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ASJ-03, North-East
PRAMACHALA District,
Date: 2024.10.15
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
16:32:10 +0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015
State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc.
SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW62/SI On 25.02.2014, he served notice u/s. 91 Cr.P.C to Jitender various Government Authorities at Meerut of U.P on the instructions of the then ACP Seelampur. On 27.02.2014, PW62 visited property no. 6/2, Mehmood Nagar, Meerut and served notice u/s. 91 Cr.P.C. upon one Jahid, who was found occupying that property. On same day he served another notice u/s. 91 Cr.P.C. to one Kafil at property no. 534, Shyam Nnagar, Meerut. On 28.02.2014, PW62 visited office of SDO, Lisadi Gate, Meerut and served notice u/s. 91 Cr.P.C.
On 01.03.2014, he visited office of DSO and Jal Nigam in Meerut and served similar notice there. On 03.03.2014, he served similar notice at Sub Registrar Office, Meerut. On 05.03.2014 he served similar notice at Nagar Nigam, Meerut (House Tax Department). On 06.03.20214, he examined one Allauddin at property no. 6/2, Mehmood Nagar, u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. On 12.03.214 he visited office of Jal Nigam and DSO, Meerut and collected reply to notice u/s. 91 Cr.P.C. On 14.03.2014, he collected reply to similar notice from SDO office, Meerut. On 19.03.2014 he collected reply to similar notice from Nagar Nigam office, Meerut. On 22.03.2014 he collected remaining reports from SDO office, Meerut. On 26.03.2014 he collected reply to similar notice from Sub Registrar office, Meerut. On 31.03.2014 he served similar notice in Sub Registrar office, Meerut. On 03.04.2014 he came back to Delhi and handed over all the replies and reports collected by him to Sh. Amit Sharma, the then ACP Seelampur. PW63/HC Jai He brought the order of destruction of Ex.PW63/A Singh record of externment cell till (photocopy 31.12.2012, which was issued by ACP of order of (H.Q), NE District, Delhi. PW63 destruction identified signature of ACP Suraj Pal of record of Giri on this order. externment cell till 31.12.2012) Digitally signed Page 31 of 86 (Pulastya byPramachala) PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Date: Delhi 2024.10.15 16:32:22 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW64/HC He was working as data operator in the office of DCP Pravesh (East) on 02.07.2016. On that day, the then DCP Sh. Rathi Rishi Pal called him in his chamber and directed to type statement of someone. There was one person in his chamber and DCP was recording his statement, which was typed by PW64. As per direction of DCP, PW64 signed that statement as mark of certifying that he had typed under dictation of DCP. PW64 identified the signature at circle Z on the last page of statement Ex.PW52/A. PW65/Sh. He was posted as ACP Seelampur in Ex.PW65/A Amit Sharma December 2013, when he was handed & over further investigation of this case. Ex.PW65/B PW65 found that there were properties (two letters suspected to be of accused Kamal @ sent by Kamaluddin. PW65 to CTS, PW65 collected information about the Meerut, U.P. same. There were 17 properties in respect of situated in Delhi, while two such two properties were situated in Meerut, properties U.P. PW65 wrote letter to Delhi Urban i.e. 2-34 and Shelter Improvement Board and 6/2 of received the reply from that place accused which are Ex.PW6/A and Ex.A-51. Kamal); This reply was received alongwith other documents, which are Ex.A-52 Ex.PW65/C to Ex.A-69. and Ex.PW65/D PW65 wrote two letters to Chief Tax (two notices Superintendent, Meerut, U.P., to issued by provide complete chain of two PW65); properties i.e. 2-34, Shyam Nagar, Ward no.72, Meerut, U.P. and H.No. Ex.PW65/E- 6/2, Mehmood Nagar, Ward no.48, 1 to Meerut, U.P. PW65 also issued two Ex.PW65/E-
notices. 8 (reply from
occupants of
PW65 also issued notice to occupants eight of all 17 properties located in Delhi, to properties in provide documents in support of their Delhi); & Page 32 of 86 Digitally (Pulastya signed Pramachala) by PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PULASTYA PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 16:32:33 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties occupation of those properties. He also Ex.PW 65/F received reply from Sub Registrar, (forwarding Meerut alongwith certain documents, letter of which is Ex.A-92. PW65 received PW65) reply from occupants of eight properties in Delhi. PW65 had put his signatures on all these replies at circle X. PW65 had forwarded documents submitted by seven occupants of properties to Sub Registrar, Seelampur, for verification along with forwarding letter.
PW66/Sh. He was posted as Joint CP (Eastern Ex.PW66/A Satish Range) on 17.08.2016. On that day, he (sanction Golchha received a report from ACP, order Seelampur for grant of sanction of accorded by prosecution u/s 23 (2) of MCOC Act PW66 for against accused Mohd. Jamal @ prosecution Ranjha. PW66 had also received case of accused file/draft supplementary chargesheet Jamal) and shadow file of original chargesheet. After going through the report and the documents and after discussion with IO of this case, PW66 formed opinion that it was a fit case to accord sanction for prosecution and accordingly, he accorded sanction for prosecution of accused Mohd. Jamal.
PW67/ Both were brothers. Both deposed that in the year Mohd. 2013, PW67 was sent to jail. Furkan & PW67 deposed that he was sent to jail in a murder
PW68/ case bearing FIR No. 442/13. The mobile number of Mohd. PW68 in the year 2014-15 was 9990994172. They did Rizwan not support the case of prosecution regarding extortion calls being made by accused Kamaluddin from Jail. PW69/SI He was IO in FIR No. 12/15, PS Seelampur, who had Shailender filed chargesheet in that case against accused Kamaluddin with allegations of making extortion call from Tihar Jail itself.
Page 33 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) Digitally signedASJ-03, North-East by PULASTYADistrict, PULASTYAKarkardooma Courts, Delhi PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 16:32:41 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW70/Sh. He was working as ACP, Seelampur, Ex.PW70/A Anand when he was handed over the and Mishra investigation of this case on Ex.PW70/B 01.07.2014. PW70 received (applications verification report from Sub Registrar, to interrogate Seelampur, which are Ex.A-35, Ex.A- accused 36, Ex.A-37 and Ex.A-38. In Kamaluddin September 2014, PW70 sent notice u/s and Umar); 91 Cr.P.C. to BSES to furnish the Ex.PW70/G information regarding electricity (Letter sent consumer in certain properties. That by PW70 to notice is Ex.A-121. Saifi On 17.11.2024, PW70 visited Tihar Associates Jail and with permission from the for valuation court he interrogated accused of 13 Kamaluddin and Umar @ Pao. PW70 properties); arrested and personally searched accused Kamaluddin and Umar @ Pao in this case. Arrest and personal search memos of accused Kamaluddin are Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 and that of accused Umar @ Pau are Ex.A-4 & Ex.A-3, respectively. PW70 obtained certified copies of cognizance orders with chargesheet in several other FIRs against accused persons.
PW70 sent letters to Motor Licencing Authorities and received reply from Transport Department, which are Ex.A-87 to Ex.A-89. PW70 obtained copy of affidavit as submitted by Hazzan Shakila before Returning Officer of EDMC. PW70 sent letter to Saifi Associates for valuation of 13 properties.
PW70 produced nine public witnesses before ld. MM for recording their statements u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. During investigation of this case, he came to Digitally signed Page 34 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2024.10.15 16:32:49 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties know about registration of FIR No. 12/15, PS Seelampur against accused Kamaluddin and Jamal @ Ranjha. On 16.04.2015, PW70 moved an application before Joint C.P. Eastern Range, for according sanction u/s.
23(2) of MCOC Act, against accused Kamaluddin and Umar @ Pau with accused Iqbal Gazi (since deceased). He received this sanction on 17.04.2015 and thereafter, he filed chargesheet against accused Kamaluddin, Umar @ Pao and Iqbal Gazi (since deceased) on 18.04.2015. PW70 recorded statement of public witnesses on 06.10.2015 and on 20.06.2016. He received information about arrest of accused Jamal in FIR No. 548/13, PS Seelampur. PW70 visited PS Seelampur on 21.06.2016 and arrested and personally searched accused Jamal in this case vide arrest and personal search memo Ex.PW55/A and Ex.PW55/B, respectively. PW70 obtained police remand for accused Jamal for 6 days and recorded his disclosure statement. On 27.06.2016, PW70 obtained another 6 day's police remand for accused Jamal. On 01.07.2016, accused Jamal had shown his willingness to make his disclosure statement before DCP and on the same day, accused Jamal was produced before Sh. Rishipal, the then DCP (East). Thereafter, custody of accused Jamal was transferred to SHO, PS Mandawali on that day. On 02.07.2016, PW70 was informed by Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 35 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, 16:32:58 Delhi +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties Sh. Rishi Pal that he had recorded confessional statement of accused Jamal and that said statement was to be delivered in sealed condition to CMM (East). Thereafter, PW70 alongwith accused Jamal came to the court of CMM (East) and accused Jamal was produced before the court when CMM (East) had conversation with accused Jamal in his chamber.
On 03.07.2016, accused Jamal took PW70 to H.No. 65/224 and he handed over photocopies of two GPAs in respect of that property and property no. 20/224, which were seized by PW70 vide memo Ex.PW54/A. On 16.08.2016, PW70 moved notesheet alongwith chargesheet and complete record of this case, before the then Joint CP (ER) namely Sh.
Satish Golcha for according sanction u/s. 23(2) of MCOC Act against accused Jamal. PW70 was called by Mr. Golcha next day to discuss the case and on 22.08.2016, sanction was accorded by him. Thereafter, PW70 filed supplementary chargesheet against accused Jamal on 26.08.2016. PW70 correctly identified all three accused persons, before the court.
Admitted documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C. Arrest and personal search memo of accused Kamal as Ex.A-1 & Ex.A-2, respectively; personal search and arrest memo of accused Mohd. Umar @ Pau as Ex.A-3 & Ex.A-4, respectively; amended charge against accused Mohd. Jamal dated 16.02.2013 as Ex.A-5; cognizance order in FIR No. 23/08 of PS Seelampur as Ex.A-6; cognizance order in FIR No. 337/07 of PS Seelampur dated 06.09.07 as Ex.A-7; cognizance order in FIR No. 368/08 of PS Seelampur dated Digitally signed Page 36 of 86 by PULASTYA PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts,+0530 16:33:06 Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties 10.06.09 as Ex.A-8; cognizance order in FIR No. 238/04 of PS Seelampur dated 18.08.06 as Ex.A-9; cognizance order in FIR No. 693/99 of PS Seelampur dated 31.01.01 as Ex.A-10; cognizance order in FIR No. 280/09 of PS Seelampur dated 12.11.09 as Ex.A-11; cognizance order in FIR No. 296/09 of PS Seelampur dated 22.01.10 as Ex.A-12; cognizance order in FIR No. 420/08 of PS Seelampur dated 27.01.09 as Ex.A-13; cognizance order in FIR No. 455/08 of PS Seelampur dated 27.04.09 as Ex.A-14; cognizance order in FIR No. 391/02 of PS Seelampur dated 27.03.06 as Ex.A-15; cognizance order in FIR No. 634/98 of PS Seelampur dated 10.12.99 as Ex.A-16; cognizance order in FIR No. 513/95 of PS Seelampur dated 10.11.95 as Ex.A-17; cognizance order in FIR No. 169/2000 of PS Seelampur dated 04.09.2000 as Ex.A-18; charge in FIR No. 644/05 against accused Kamal @ Kamluddin dated 07.04.2011 as Ex.A-19; cognizance order in FIR No. 515/07 of PS Seelampur dated 15.04.08 as Ex.A-20; cognizance order in FIR No. 514/07 of PS Seelampur dated 29.03.08 as Ex.A-21; cognizance order in FIR No. 79/09 of PS Seelampur dated 15.10.09 as Ex.A-22; cognizance order in FIR No. 344/11 of PS Seelampur dated 08.11.12 as Ex.A-23; cognizance order in FIR No. 43/11 of PS Seelampur dated 24.03.11 as Ex.A-24; cognizance order in FIR No. 617/06 of PS Seelampur dated 15.03.08 as Ex.A-25; cognizance order in FIR No. 254/12 of PS Jafrabad dated 05.02.14 as Ex.A-26; charge in FIR No. 238/12 of PS New Usmanpur against accused Mohd. Umar, Kamal @ Kamaluddin and others dated 08.08.13 as Ex.A-27; charge in FIR No. 258/12 of PS Seelampur against accused Umar @ Pau, Jamal @ Ranjha, Kamal @ Kamaluddin and others as Ex.A-28; charge in FIR No. 189/10 against accused Jamal @ Ranjha and Mohd. Umar @ Pahu dated 30.01.13 as Ex.A-29; cognizance order in FIR No. 236/12 of PS Vivek Vihar dated 22.07.14 as Ex.A-30; approval order of DCP as Ex.A-31; FIR No. 1009/15 as Ex.A-32; and FIR No. 567/14 as Ex.A-33; proceedings of statement u/s 164 Cr. PC as Ex.A-34; GPAs produced by Sh. Gopal Dutt from the office of Sub Registrar; Sub Division (IV); Seelampur as Ex.A-35 to Ex.A-38; reply dated 19.11.2013 of Dy. Assessor Collector to letter of ACP, Seelampur as Ex.A-39; letter of ACP dated 04.11.2013 addressed to Dy. Commissioner; EDMC as Ex.A-40; reply dated 12.11.2013 of notice issued by ACP as Ex.A-41; letter of ACP dated 04.11.2013 to Food & Supply Office as Ex.A-42; details of ration card as Ex.A-43; letter dated 04.11.13 to Zonal Revenue office as Ex.A-44; reminder dated 20.12.13 as Ex.A-45; reply of Zonal Revenue officer Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 37 of 86 PULASTYA(Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:33:24 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties dated 06.11.13 as Ex.A-46 (colly 2 pages); reply dated 06.11.13 of Delhi Jail Board as Ex.A-47; details of allottee as Ex.A-48 (colly 2 pages); letter of ACP dated 20.12.13 as Ex.A-49 (colly 2 pages); map of property as Ex.A-50; reply dated 31.01.14 of Dy. Director JJR as Ex.A-51; details of allottee as Ex.A-52 to Ex.A-71; status report dated 17.01.14 as Ex.A-72 (colly 2 pages); notices u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to different registered owners as Ex.A-73 to Ex.A-89; details of verification of ownership dated 10.02.14 as Ex.A-90; reply of the office of Sub Registrar (SR-IV) as Ex.A-91; letter of ACP regarding verification of ownership dated 31.01.14 as Ex.A 92; verification document of H.No. 534 by Sub Registrar-II (Meerut) as Ex.A-93; agreement to sell dated 19.12.206 as Ex.A-94 (colly 9 pages); sale deed as Ex.A-95; verification document of H.No. 6/2; Mehmood Nagar by Sub Registrar-II (Meerut) as Ex.A-96; notices u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to SDO; Meerut as Ex.A-97 & Ex. A-98; reply of SDO-VI, Lisari Gate, Meerut to ACP as Ex.A-99 & Ex.A-100; agreement to sell dated 18.12.06 as Ex.A-101 (colly 10 pages); DD entry made at PS Lisari Gate, Meerut as Ex.A-102; notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to Director General, Jal Board, Meerut in respect of H.No.534 as Ex.A-103; reply of DG, Jal Board as Ex.A-104 & Ex. A-105; notice u/s 91 Cr.PC to DG, Jal Board, Meerut in respect of H.No.6/2, Mehmood Nagar as Ex.A-106; reply of DG, Jal Board dated 11.03.2014 as Ex.A-107 & Ex.A-108; DD entry made at PS Kotwali as Ex.A-109; agreement to sell as Ex.A-110; receipt of Nagar Nigam, Meerut as Ex.A-111; details of ration card given to ACP as Ex.A-112 & Ex.A-113; notices u/s 91 Cr.PC to DSO, Meerut in respect of H.No.6/2 and 534 as Ex.A-114 & Ex. A-115; DD entry made at PS Kotwali; District Meerut as Ex.A-116; statement of Jahid dated 27.02.14 as Ex.A-117; complaint of Jahid as Ex.A-118; statement of Kafeel as Ex.A-119; reply of BSES as Ex.A-120 (colly 2 pages); notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to BSES as Ex.A 121; copy of FIR No. 258/12, PS Seelampur as Ex.A-122 (colly 4 pages); copy of FIR No. 254/12, PS Jafrabad as Ex.A-123 (colly pages); copy of FIR No. 238/12, PS N.Usmanpur as Ex.A-124 (colly 3 pages); copy of chargesheet of FIR No. 60/09, PS Jafrabad as Ex.A-125 (colly 11 pages); copy of FIR No. 60/09, PS Jafrabad as Ex.A-126 (colly 2 pages); memo of parties and cognizance order in FIR No. 60/09, PS Jafrabad as Ex.A-127 (colly 2 pages); order on charge in FIR No. 60/09, PS Jafrabad as Ex.A-128 (colly 6 pages); copy of FIR No. 236/12, PS Vivek Vihar as Ex.A-129 (colly 4 pages); copy of FIR No. 740/07, PS Gokalpuri as Ex.A-130 (colly 3 pages); letter of providing Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 38 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts,+0530 16:33:32 Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties CDR and CAF as Ex.A-131; CDR as Ex.A-132 (colly 4 pages); certificate u/s 65B of IE Act as Ex.A 133; customer information form as Ex.A-134; copy of FIR as Ex.A-135; subscriber information as Ex.A-136; certificate u/s 65B of IE Act as Ex.A-137; CAF as Ex.A 138; Cell ID list as Ex.A-139 and CDR as Ex.A-140 (colly running into 30 sheets).
PLEA OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S. 351 BNSS
18. All three accused persons denied all the allegations. 18.1 Plea of accused Mohd. Umar @ Pao - This accused took plea that the approval was under compulsion as there was an order of Special Court for registration of FIR. Therefore, there was no application of mind in grant of approval. He was falsely implicated in the present case. He took further plea that PW7 accorded approval for registration of present case for MCOCA in cyclostyle proforma without following parameters laid down under MCOCA and on account of order of Special Court for registration of FIR. He took further plea that he had purchased two-wheeler bearing no. DL-3SBZ-5142 in the year 2003 on EMI. He had sold the same after sometime and out of the sale he had purchased CBZ bike bearing no. DL-7SAY-3513 in the year 2005-06. Except these two vehicles, he did not own any immovable or movable property. He denied about announcement of any reward of Rs.50,000/- against him, vide order of ACP. He took further plea that he had filed appeal before Hon'ble LG against Externment order, which was allowed and the Externment order was set aside. He took further plea that all the allegations made by PW33/Mobin, who was himself a bad character of area, Digitally signed Page 39 of 86 PULASTYA(Pulastya byPramachala) PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East PRAMACHALA District, Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:34:48 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur are false and concocted. Accused Mohd. Umar took further plea that he and his brothers were not indulged in any satta business in Trans Yamuna area or anywhere else. He took further plea that neither he nor did his brother use to earn money daily by extortion or satta business. Accused Umar took further plea that his father Iqbal Gazi was running a milk dairy at Seelampur, Delhi and he had lot of buffaloes. Accused Umar was running ration shop authorised by government in 1999-2001 and thereafter, he started running Mubarak Dhaba at K-223-224 & K- 288, New Seelampur, Delhi. Accued Umar was earning his livelihood by hard labour. He had also filed his documents pertinent to these businesses in this present matter. He further took plea that PW70/Sh. Anand Mishra had conducted motivated and biased investigation in the present case to falsely implicate him. He took further plea that all the witnesses are false and interested witnesses and they have deposed falsely against him. Accused Mohd. Umar @ Pao took further plea that he is innocent. He took further plea that PW33/Mobin is his cousin, who was the bad character of Seelampur area and notorious criminal. There was a property dispute between him and family of accused Mohd. Umar as he was demanding share in the property of father of accused Mohd. Umar. He took further plea that it is a false case registered at the behest of Mr. Vivek Gogia, who was the then DCP, North-East, in the year 2003 as well as at the behest of Insp. Gurcharan Dass, who was the then SHO of PS Seelampur. The reason behind it was that one person by the name of Akbar died in police custody in PS Seelampur and his father namely Late Iqbal Gazi had filed complaints before the police Digitally signed Page 40 of 86 by PULASTYA PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:34:56 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur authorities. Subsequently his father had filed an application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration of FIR against above-mentioned Mr. Vivek Gogia and Insp. Gurcharan Dass. He took further plea that on the application of his father, FIR was ordered to be registered against above-mentioned police officials, vide order dated 05.11.2003 by the then ld. MM, Sh. P.S. Malik. The above- mentioned officials by using the influence and official position, instead of registering the FIR, challenged that order before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Thereafter, the police officials started putting pressure upon his father to withdraw the proceedings initiated by him, but his father did not do so. Therefore, as a counter attack police officials registered present false case in the year 2013. It was because of this reason the above said officials used PW33/Mobin as a tool to falsely implicate him along with his father and brothers in the case of MCOCA and got the present FIR registered against him and his family including his father and brothers. Accused Mohd. Umar was helping his father in his milk dairy. Apart from that accused Mohd. Umar was running a ration shop authorised by government in 1999-2001 and thereafter, he started running Mubarak Dhaba at K-223-224 & K-288, New Seelampur, Delhi. Accused Mohd. Umar took further plea that he was earning his livelihood by hard labour. He had also filed his documents pertinent to these businesses in the present matter. He took further plea that FIR No. 617/2006, u/s. 452/323/506/34 IPC, was registered against his brothers Hazi Afzal and Kamaluddin. In that FIR, his father late Sh. Iqbal Gazi was complainant and brother Jamal was a witness against Kamaluddin, therefore, there Digitally signed Page 41 of 86 by PULASTYA PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:35:05 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur was no crime syndicate between them.
19. Plea of accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin @ Bilal - This accused also took plea that the approval was under compulsion as there was an order of Special Court for registration of FIR. Therefore, there was no application of mind in grant of approval. It is a false case against him. He took further plea that no Externment order was served upon him at any point of time. He admitted that he had a dispute with his father-in-law Kallu on some transactions. He took further plea that complaint dated 16.05.2013 is a false complaint, which subsequently resulted in the registration of the present FIR and therefore, the present case was falsely registered. He took further plea that the sanction was accorded without application of mind and false allegations were made against him. He took further plea that PW70/Sh. Anand Mishra conducted motivated investigation to falsely implicate him. He took further plea that witnesses have deposed falsely as they were interested witnesses. Accused Kamal also took further plea on the same lines as pleaded by accused Mohd. Umar in respect of registration of this case at the behest of Mr. Vivek Gogia and Insp. Gurcharan Dass. He also took plea that he was helping his father in his milk dairy. Apart from that, he was also running the shop of milk dairy products.
20. Plea of accused Mohd. Jamal @ Ranjha - This accused also took plea that there was no application of mind in grant of approval. He took further plea that the properties were purchased from his own funds from milk dairy business, Tea-Stall and Dhaba business. It was further pleaded that no Externment order was Digitally signed by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA Page 42 of 86 PRAMACHALA (Pulastya Date:Pramachala) 2024.10.15 ASJ-03, North-East 16:35:12 District, +0530 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur served upon him. He took further plea that complainant Mohd. Mobin (PW33) was an interested witness and PW33 is the brother-in-law of accused Kamaluddin @ Kamal and that PW33 was against the marriage of his cousin sister with Kamal. Accused Jamal took further plea that there was no application of mind in sanction of MCOCA. Accused Jamal denied the allegations made against him by PW45/Protected Witness 'B' regarding making phone call, threatening PW45 and demanding Rs.10 lacs from him. Accused Jamal took further plea that his confessional statement was obtained by threatening him and the same was not voluntarily. He had filed an application to retract the said confession. It was further pleaded by accused Jamal that the property papers were handed over by his father/accused Iqbal Gazi (since deceased) to the investigating officer and the police had falsely shown the recovery at his instance. Accused Jamal took further plea that he had surrendered himself in PS Seelampur. He took further plea that no statement was typed by PW64/HC Pravesh Rathi before him and he was threatened and made to sign on it and that the same was not voluntarily statement. Accused Jamal took further plea that he was threatened by the police officials to make the confession and many witnesses have stated that the police implicated him falsely. Accused Jamal took further plea that he is innocent and there is no allegation from police that the offence was committed on the basis of syndicate. He took further plea that he did not have any such syndicate. Only MCOCA charges have been implicated on him and no IPC charge has been charged. He further took plea that he has been falsely implicated under MCOCA.
Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 43 of 86 PULASTYA(Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALAPRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:35:21 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur
21. All three accused persons opted to lead evidnece in their defence and six defence witnesses were examined namely DW1/Ct. Vipin Sharma, DW2/accused Jamal @ Ranjah, DW3/Sh. Ravi Kumar, DW4/Sh. Zameel Sabri, DW5/Ms. Kalpana Chaudhary and DW6/Sh. Amit Kumar.
22. I have heard ld. Addl. PP, ld. counsel for complainant as well as ld. counsels for respective accused. I have perused the entire materials on the record, including written arguments. ARGUMENTS OF PROSECUTION & DEFENCE
23. Sh. P.L. Behl, ld. counsel for accused Mohd. Umar @ Pau, argued that no property was proved against this accused. There is no conviction in the cases, cited against this accused in the present case. It was further argued that no crime related to crime syndicate was alleged in this case. This case or even FIR No. 258/2012 was filed, out of personal enmity by the complainant, who was having personal dispute with family of accused. It was further argued that order of court was sent with proposal for FIR and sanction was accorded on same day, when the proposal was received by PW7/Sh. V.V. Chaudhary. PW7 said that he perused the list of properties to ascertain pecuniary gain by accused, but IO/PW70/Sh. Anand Mishra admitted that there was no list of properties in the name of accused Mohd. Umar @ Pao. It was further argued that neither chargesheet nor evidence disclosed that this accused was head of the gang.
24. In the written submissions filed on behalf of accused Mohd.
Umar @ Pao, Sh. P.L. Behl submitted that prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against accused Umar @ Pau and he Digitally signed by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA Page 44 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 ASJ-03, North-East 16:35:29 District, +0530 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur deserved acquittal on following grounds: -
24.1 That there is no syndicate and complainant Mobin is relative of accused persons and there are family disputes between them.
Hence, the individual cases need not to be considered as the organized crime.
24.2 That sanction under Section 23 of MCOCA was accorded under compulsion of order dated 29.07.2013 as passed by ld. Special Judge (MCOCA) to register a case under provisions of MCOCA act and there was non-application of mind. As, refusal to register the case would have been deemed as contempt of court. That on the very next day the approval order was made in haste, without verifying the factual position. Even Mobin did not disclose in his complaint filed before the Judge/Inderjeet Singh as to what property was purchased by accused and in which alleged crime, he gained the pecuniary advantages and amount was earned by the accused persons, and as to what property was purchased from the said amount. So, pecuniary gain is not established. 24.3 That although, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had dismissed criminal appeal filed against order dated 29.07.2013, but at that juncture investigation had just started. Now, it is final stage where entire evidence has been recorded. This fact is relevant for consideration.
24.4 That FIR No. 18/2009 under MCOCA was registered against Haji Afzal i.e. real elder brother of accused person. In that case, PW33/Mobin had moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for registration of case against accused Kamaluddin, Jamal @ Ranjha and Umar @ Pau (real brothers of Afzal). That there is not a single case against accused Mohd. Umar @ Pao, wherein he has been involved with Haji Afzal. 24.5 That prosecution has heavily relied upon testimony of PW33/ Mobin; while his testimony is highly contradictory, inconsistent, devoid of any merits and deserves to be discarded. PW33 had also made wild allegation against accused Mohd. Umar and his brothers/accused persons, to make false grounds for moving application for registration of false case against the accused persons. From the testimony of PW33/Mobin, it is quite evident that he had deliberately cooked up false story to falsely implicate the accused persons.
24.6 That as per version of PW33/Mobin, there is relationship between him and accused persons. Hence, at no point of time the Digitally signed Page 45 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:35:37 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur alleged organized crime syndicate was running by the accused persons because it shows the personal enmity and family disputes among the family members, due to which PW33/Mobin falsely implicated accused persons in collusion with police officials. That PW33 admitted in his examination in chief that accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin married to Smt. Baharo. She is daughter of his uncle namely Kallu R/o Lisari Gate, behind Kasayi wali masjid, Meerut UP. There was a dispute between accused Kamal and his father-in-law namely Kallu on the issue of some money transaction (Len Den). PW33 admitted in his cross-examination that prior to filing of complaint in the court for registration of the case under Section 319 Cr.P.C and Section-9 MCOCA, he was on inimical terms with all the accused persons. 24.7 That in MCOCA cases, pecuniary gain is one of the essential elements to prove the guilt of the accused persons and no evidence of pecuniary gain or other advantage gained by accused persons, has been proved on record by prosecution which is sine qua non for the offense's punishable u/s 3 of MCOCA 1999. As such prosecution has utterly failed to prove that pecuniary gain or other advantage were gained by accused persons by use of violence, threat or coercion or other unlawful means. 24.8 That PW33/Mobin in his examination-in-chief stated that accused Kamal indulged in Smack business and he was running aforesaid business in J-Block Jhuggi, Seelampur since 2004 or 2005 and accused Ranjha and Umar @ Pau indulged in Satta business in the area of Trans-Yamuna for last 10 years. But, no FIR regarding any Gambling or NDPS Act has been registered against accused persons and prosecution has not adduced any evidence with regard to above said allegation made by PW33. Therefore, version of PW33 about Satta and Smack business run by the accused persons stands falsified. 24.9 That number of protected witnesses have admitted that accused Umar @ pau has been running Mubarak Dhaba, and he was lawfully gained. This also falsified prosecution's version about accused persons getting pecuniary gains through violence and threat. That in his cross-examination, PW47/protected witness 'G' deposed that accused Umar @ Pau had been running a dhaba by the name of Mubarak Dhaba for the last 20-25 years and that accused Jamal @ Ranjha had been running a tea stall by the name of Rehman Tea Stall.
24.10 That no re-examination of protected witnesses was ever sought Page 46 of 86 Digitally (Pulastya signed Pramachala) by PULASTYA PULASTYAASJ-03, PRAMACHALA North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 16:36:38 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur by ld. Prosecutor, meaning thereby that testimonies of protected witnesses regarding running Mubarak Dhaba by accused Umar @ Pau, more than 20 years prior to the registration of FIR has not been disputed by the Prosecution.
24.11 That prosecution has failed to prove that Section-2(d) of MCOCA deals with a syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheet have been filed before a competent court. Now the prosecution relied upon 2 cases i.e FIR Nos. 238/2004 and 91/2005, which fell under the cut-off period of August 2003 to August 2013. However, at the time of framing of charge, it was mentioned in the charge that accused had committed continuing unlawful activities w.e.f. 17.09.2007, whereas prosecution relied upon FIR Nos. 238/2004 and 91/2005, which were prior to the year 2007.
24.12 Reliance was placed upon the case of Shiva @ Shivaji Ram (supra), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the concept of Section-2(d) of MCOCA.
24.13 That prosecution has filed list of 7 previous cases pending against the accused Umar @ Pau, in which the cognizance was taken by the competent court within the past 10 years. However, prosecution failed to prove the nexus of the organization, and that in all those cases accused Umar @ Pau had been acquitted. 24.14 In support of his contentions, ld. counsel for accused Mohd.
Umar @ Pao, relied upon certain case laws, which are: -
24.14.1 Case of Ranjitsing (supra), to submit that abetment involves mens-rea, knowledge and intention. The offence under Section 3(2) of the MCOC Act must have a direct nexus with the offence committed by an organized crime syndicate and abetment of commission of offence must be by way of accessories before the commission of an offence.
24.14.2 Case of Jamal @ Ranjha v. State, CRL.M.C. No. 6128/2024, decided on 08.08.2024, wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that: -
".......................for the purpose of final adjudication, summoning of judgments passed in respective FIRs relied upon for invocation of MCOCA would enable the accused/petitioner to establish or show that the offences alleged in aforesaid FIRs were not committed as a member of an "organized crime syndicate" or on behalf of such syndicate with the objective of inter alia gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other advantages for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency, even if the "acquittal ‟ or Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 47 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, Date:North-East District, 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:36:58 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur „discharge‟ in the aforesaid cases may not be relevant for purpose of clause (d) of Section 2(1) of MCOCA. What is important is whether the commission of an offence by the accused would constitute "continuing unlawful activity" as a member of an organized crime syndicate and so long as the said requirement is not met, the conviction under Section 3 of MCOCA may not be upheld. .........."
24.14.3 Case of Dheerpal Alias Kana v. State Govt. Of NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4106, to submit that acquittal of the applicant in concerned cases, at the stage of grant of bail under MCOCA, may not be relevant but the same does not exclude the consideration of grounds of acquittal for determining if the ingredients of Section 3 of MCOCA are satisfied. 24.14.4 Case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Brijesh Singh @ Arun Kumar, AIR 2017 SC 4888, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "However, we are in agreement with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents that an activity of organized crime in Delhi is a sine qua non for registration of a crime under MCOCA. In the absence of an organized crime being committed in Delhi, the accused cannot be prosecuted on the basis of charge sheets filed outside Delhi." 24.14.5 Case of The State of Maharashtra VS Rahul Ramchandra Taru, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.239 of 2011, wherein Bombay High Court observed that: -
"The Statement of Objects and Reasons clearly states as to why the said Act had to be enacted. Thus, it will be safe to presume that the expression 'any unlawful means' must refer to any such act, which has a direct nexus with the commission of a crime which the MCOC Act seeks to prevent or control. In other words, an offence falling within the definition of organized crime and committed by an organized crime syndicate, is the offence contemplated by the Statement of Objects and Reasons. There are offences and offences under the Indian Penal Code and other penal statutes providing for punishment of three years or more and in relation to such offences more than one chargesheet may be filed. As we have indicated hereinbefore, only because a person cheats or commits a criminal breach of trust, more than once, the same by itself may not be sufficient to attract the provisions of MCOCA".
24.15 Sh. P.L. Behal, ld. counsel for accused Mohd. Umar @ Pao further submitted that there was no head in the said syndicate, and it was not disclosed in sanction or approval, and even charge sheet is silent in this regard. Without head/boss of the syndicate Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 48 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALAASJ-03, Date: North-East District, 2024.10.15 Karkardooma 16:37:05 Courts, +0530 Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur the membership of syndicate will collapse. It is settled preposition of law that there must be a head in syndicate.
25. Sh. Sulaiman Mohd. Khan and Sh. Mohd. Irfan, ld. counsels for accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin @ Bilal, argued that complainant (PW33) is not a pious man, who alleged crime syndicate against accused. PW33 alleged about FIR Nos.258/2012 and 238/2012. It was further argued that in FIR No. 258/2012, there were allegations of demand of extortion. But in his cross-examination, PW33 denied that there was any demand for pecuniary gain. In FIR No. 238/2012, PW33 alleged about threats given for not giving evidence in FIR No. 258/2012. It was further argued that prosecution failed to prove any pecuniary gain and protected witnesses turned hostile. It was further argued that PW45/protected witness 'B' spoke about incidents taken place in February 2014.
25.1 Sh. Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, ld. counsel for accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin @ Bilal, filed a written synopsis. In the written synopsis, it was submitted that prosecution relied upon testimony of PW70, wherein it was stated that FIR No.258/12 and FIR No.238/12 were included as cases of organized crime, because accused persons were getting 'other advantage' by creating havoc in the society. But this accused had not gained any pecuniary by extorting money from any people as alleged against him, as there was no such complaint registered against this accused before the registration of present FIR. It was further submitted that accused Kamal was acquitted in many cases, which signified that he was not involved in the commission of offences with which he was charged. It was further argued that there was no live link between all different offences alleged against accused Kamal and isolated incident spread over a period of 10 years involving different type of offences would not attract the provisions of MCOC Act. It was Digitally signed Page 49 of 86 by PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:37:14 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur further submitted that for Section 3(4) of MCOCA, result in previous case against the accused becomes important as in case of acquittal, accused cannot be presumed to be part of gang. It was further submitted that no pecuniary gain or other advantage was gained by the accused, which is sine qua non for the offences punishable under Section 3 of MCOCA, 1999. 25.2 It was further submitted that none of the independent/protected witnesses has supported the case of prosecution except complainant. Statement of PW45 suffers from glaring contradictions. In his cross-examination dated 06.02.2019, complainant deposed that "I do not remember as to whether I had stated this fact that on 25-26 July, the accused Kamal had come to my shop situated at Chouhan Bangar in complaint Ex.PW33/A and I exactly do not remember whether accused came to my shop on 25 or 26 July 2012. I do not remember whether this fact that I asked Kamal that he was my cousin and why he was demanding protection money from me but he reiterated that I will have to pay that amount." This part of his deposition clearly shows that no pecuniary gain or other advantage was gained by accused Kamal.
25.3 It was further submitted that prosecution could not establish ownership of any of the alleged properties in the name of accused Kamal. Ld. counsel referred to the cross-examination dated 04.03.2023 of PW60, wherein PW60 deposed that "It is correct to suggest that as per replies received by me from different authorities, none of the alleged properties could be established to be owned by any of the accused persons." Ld. counsel also referred to the cross-examination dated 27.01.2024 of PW70, wherein PW70 deposed that "It is correct to suggest that whatever properties were verified by me, none of them were found in the name of Umar. Vol. The properties were found in the name of father and brother of accused Umar i.e. Iqbal Gazi and Jamal @ Ranjha." Referring the same, ld. counsel submitted that the properties were purchased with the hard-earned money of dairy business of Iqbal Gazi and Jamal @ Ranjha. 25.4 Ld. counsel for accused Kamal, referred to the testimony dated Digitally signed by Page 50 of 86 PULASTYA(Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALAKarkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2024.10.15 16:37:21 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur 14.01.2016 of PW10/Kusum Sharma, wherein PW10 deposed that the property bearing H.No.534, Shyam Nagar, Ward No.72, Kotwali, Meerut, U.P. belonged to Smt. Shahna Begum and Smt. Nasim and Smt. Shakuntala Devi was the tax payer of the same property since 1975 as per record. It was further submitted that PW11/Sh. Tota Ram deposed in his statement dated 14.01.2016 that the transfer deed dated 20.12.2006 with site plan was executed by Azad Babu in favour of Smt. Shahana and another certified copy of sale deed with site plan dated 27.05.2009 was executed by Smt. Baharo in favour of Smt. Nasim. 25.5 Ld. counsel further submitted that the property bearing H.No.6/2, Mehmood Nagar, Ward No.48, Meerut, U.P. belonged to Sh. Allauddin S/o Habib and the afore-said property was executed in favour of Naushad and his wife Naziya Razi by transfer deed dated 30.01.2021 and 31.05.2021. Reference was made to the cross-examination dated 04.07.2024 of PW49, wherein PW49 deposed that "I do not remember the exact date, month or year of entering into sale purchase transactions in respect of land measuring 125 sq. yards situated at Mehmood Nagar with Kamal. I had not obtained any document with signature of Kamal for handing over possession of this plot to him. I had executed registered document in favour of Naushad and his wife regarding aforesaid plot. It is also correct that some amount was deposited in the bank account in my name as well as bank account of my wife in respect of these registries." 25.6 Ld. counsel for accused Kamal further submitted that during his cross-examination dated 06.10.2023, PW46 (Protected Witness D) failed to identify accused Kamal and deposed that " the Kalu as mentioned by me during examination-in-chief and Kamaluddin as mentioned by me today are same persons ." It was further stated that PW46 deposed that the money was paid by one Kalu who belonged from Sunder Nagri and that Kalu and Kamaluddin were the same person. But PW46 failed to identify this accused.
25.7 Ld. counsel for accused Kamal further submitted that prosecution completely failed to prove the organized crime syndicate, which Page 51 of 86 Digitally signed (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALAKarkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2024.10.15 16:37:29 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur means group of two or more persons who acting either singly or jointly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organized crime. Accused Kamal was falsely implicated in the present case at the behest of Mr. Vivek Gogia, who was DCP, North-East, in the year 2003 as well as at the behest of Insp. Gurcharan Dass, who was the then SHO of PS Seelampur. It was further submitted that the reason behind it was that one person by the name of Akbar died in police custody in PS Seelampur and his father Iqbal Gazi filed complaints before the police authorities and filed an application U/S 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR and the FIR was ordered to be registered against the police officials vide order dated 05.11.2003. It was further submitted that above-mentioned fact was admitted by PW47 and PW48 in their testimony before the court. 25.8 Ld. counsel for accused Kamal further submitted that in Section 2(1)(d) the expression 'continuing' has been used. Continuing unlawful activity would necessarily mean continuous engagement in unlawful activity where there would be a live link between all the different offences alleged. Isolated incident spread over a period of 10 years involving different types of offences would not attract the provisions of MCOCA. Such activity must be such as to have a link from the first to the last offence to have been committed in an organized manner by an organized crime syndicate. But in the present case there is no organized crime syndicate in existence undertaking continuing unlawful activity in the past 10 years. 25.9 In support of his contentions, ld. counsel for accused Kamal relied upon case of State of Maharashtra v. Shiva @ Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane & Ors. 2015 (4) JCC 2373, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: -
"9. It was in the above backdrop that the High Court held that once the respondents had been acquitted for the offences punishable under IPC and the Arms Act in Crimes Nos. 37 and 38 of 2001 and once the trial court had recorded an acquittal even for the offence punishable under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act in MCOCA Crimes Nos. 1 and 2 of 2002, all that remained incriminating was the filing of charge-sheets against the respondents in the past and taking of Digitally signed by Page 52 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:37:36 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur cognizance by the competent court over a period of ten years prior to the enforcement of MCOCA. The filing of charge-sheets or taking of the cognizance in the same did not, declared the High Court, by itself constitute an offence punishable under Section 3 of MCOCA. That is because the involvement of the respondent in previous offences was just about one requirement but by no means the only requirement which the prosecution has to satisfy to secure a conviction under MCOCA. What was equally, if not, more important was the commission of an offence by the respondents that would constitute "continuing unlawful activity". So long as that requirement failed, as was the position in the instant case, there was no question of convicting the respondents under Section 3 of the MCOCA. That reasoning does not, in our opinion, suffer from any infirmity.
10. The very fact that more than one charge-sheets had been filed against the respondents alleging offences punishable with more than three years' imprisonment is not enough. As rightly pointed out by the High Court commission of offences prior to the enactment of MCOCA does not by itself constitute an offence under MCOCA. Registration of cases, filing of charge-sheets and taking of cognizance by the competent court in relation to the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondents in the past is but one of the requirements for invocation of Section 3 of the MCOCA. Continuation of unlawful activities is the second and equally important requirement that ought to be satisfied. It is only if an organised crime is committed by the accused after the promulgation of MCOCA that he may, seen in the light of the previous charge-sheets and the cognizance taken by the competent court, be said to have committed an offence under Section 3 of the Act.
11. In the case at hand, the offences which the respondents are alleged to have committed after the promulgation of MCOCA were not proved against them. The acquittal of the respondents in Crimes No.37 and 38 of 2001 signified that they were not involved in the commission of the offences with which they were charged. Not only that the respondents were acquitted of the charge under the Arms Act even in Crime Cases Nos.1 and 2 of 2002. No appeal against that acquittal had been filed by the State. This implied that the prosecution had failed to prove the second ingredient required for completion of an offence under MCOCA. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that Section 3 of MCOCA could not be invoked only on the basis of the previous charge-sheets for Section 3 would come into play only if the respondents were proved to have committed an offence for gain or any pecuniary benefit or undue economic or other advantage after the promulgation of MCOCA. Such being the case, the High Court was, in our opinion, justified in allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court."
25.10 Subsequently, ld. counsel for accused Kamal also filed pointers contending that as per the definition 2(d), (e), (f) there is: - (i) no Digitally signed by Page 53 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma 16:37:46Courts, +0530 Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur organized crime syndicate; (ii) no continuing unlawful activity; and (iii) no organised crime. It was further contended that prosecution failed to prove any planning/organising/meeting of minds of the accused persons, who are alleged to be members of organised crime syndicate. It was further contended therein that there is no continuing unlawful activity because MCOCA cannot be invoked in isolation and a substantive offence needs to be registered to fulfill the pre-requisite of continuing unlawful activity. Ld. counsel further contended that prosecution failed to prove any pecuniary gain derived out of activities by alleged syndicate more-so when the father of the accused was successfully operating a Milk Dairy reflecting known source of healthy income. He further contended that none of the properties was in the name of accused Kamal. The property in the name of his wife Ms. Baharo was purchased by his father before the marriage i.e. on 11.04.2007. Rest of the properties was purchased by his father from the known source of income of milk dairy. Properties mentioned in the list which are situated in Meerut were neither connected with accused Kamaluddin, nor did prosecution able to prove that the said properties belonging to accused Kamaluddin. Ld. counsel further contended in the pointers that the value of the properties mentioned in the chargesheet was in exaggerated value as on the date of filing of report dated 31.03.2015, although the properties as per the document filed by the prosecution were purchased from year 2000 to year 2006-07. Sh. Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, ld. counsel for accused Kamal further contended in the pointers that there was no complaint against accused Kamal in the past of extortion, coercion or for forcibly acquiring any property. It was further contended that if the past cases were to be taken into consideration in which accused was acquitted, then it would be put to double jeopardy, which is not permissible under Article 20 of Constitution of India. It was further contended that without being a substantive offence indicating continuity, there would be no continuation of the unlawful activity and as a corollary no "continuing unlawful activity". Further "any unlawful means"
Digitally signed Page 54 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala)by PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03,PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA North-East District, Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:37:54 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur mentioned in Sec 2(e) of MCOCA,1999, must refer to any such act which has a direct nexus with the commission of a crime which MCOCA seeks to prevent or control. It was further contended that the approval was granted without application of mind and Section 3 of MCOCA cannot be invoked only on the basis of previous chargesheets.
26. Sh. Akshay Bhandari, ld. counsel for accused Mohd. Jamal @ Ranjha, submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 20.06.2016 and has undergone approximately 8 years and 4 months in custody. It was further submitted that to satisfy the requirements of MCOCA, prosecution has to satisfy the definition of Continuing Unlawful Activity and Organized Crime as provided under Section 2(d) and (e) of the Act. It was further submitted that the law has been settled that the offence committed to satisfy the requirements of MCOCA must be as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of the syndicate. It was further submitted that the organized crime requires that, at least two members of the alleged syndicate must be facing trial together in a matter. Reliance was placed upon the case of State of Maharashtra vs Rahul Ramchandran Taru, Crl. Appeal No. 239 of 2011, decided on 06.05.2011, wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court observe that: -
"11 In Prafulla s/o. Uddhav Shende vs. State of Maharasthra, (2009 ALL MR(Cri.) 870), the learned single Judge of this court while dealing with the bunch of appeals arising out of judgments passed by the Special Court at Nagpur, placed reliance on the various decisions, mainly, the decision in Ranjeetsingh Brahmajeetsing Sharma;s case (supra), also made a reference to the case of Sherbahadur Akram Khan (Supra) and observed in paragraphs 29, 43 and 44 that :
"29. Since the definitions, though intertwined in a cyclic order, are clear and unambiguous, it would follow that each ingredient in the definitions, or the alternative thereof provided by the definitions themselves, would have to be proved. Viewed thus, for charging a person of organised crime or being a member of organised crime Digitally signed Page 55 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03,PRAMACHALA North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:38:02 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur syndicate, 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 organised 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 chargesheets have been filed in 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 :
(a) violence, or
(b) threat of violence, or intimidation or
(c) coercion or
(d) other unlawful means.
(viii)(a) with the object of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue or other advantage or himself or any other person, or
(b) with the object of promoting insurgency.
"43. This fortifies the conclusion that mere proof of filing chargesheets in the past is not enough. It is only one of the requisites for constituting offence of organised crime. If only the past charge-sheets were to be enough to constitute offence of organised crime, it could have offended the requirement of Article 20(1) of the Constitution and possibly Article 20(2) as well, (and in any case Section 300 Cr.P.C.). Had these judgments of the Supreme Court and Division Benches of this Court been cited before the learned single Judge deciding Amarsingh Vs. State (2006 ALL MR (Cri.)407) the learned Single Judge, without doubt, would not have held that the matter was simply one of an arithmetical equation. The said judgment cannot be reconciled with the judgments of division benches in Jaising Vs. State (2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1506 and Bharat Shah vs. State 2003, ALL MR (Cri) 1061 which I am bound to follow.
44. ................. Therefore, since the previous criminal history of the applicants denotes that they had been or are being separately charged/tried for those offence before competent courts, there is no question of such offences constituting offence of organised crime.".Digitally signed by PULASTYA
PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
Page 56 of 86 PRAMACHALA Date: Pramachala)
(Pulastya
ASJ-03, 2024.10.15
North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts,
16:38:12 Delhi
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015
State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc.
SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur
27. Sh. Akshay Bhandari, ld. counsel for accused Jamal further submitted that even in the case of Mohd lliyas Mohamad Bilal Kapadiya vs State of Gujarat (SLP No. 1815/2022), Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail by observing that the applicant was facing trial alone in several cases and had only one case with other members of the Organized Crime Syndicate. Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that: -
"We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi learned senior counsel for the petitioner/applicant and Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
Mr. Rohatgi submits that for invoking the provisions of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the GCTOC Act") which is analogous with the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "MCOCA"), two requirements have to be satisfied. The first one is that an activity undertaken is either singly or jointly as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such a crime syndicate. The second one is that in respect of such an activity, more than one charge-sheet must have been filed in the preceding period of last 10 years.
Mr. Rohatgi submits that in the present case, the second requirement is not satisfied.
He submits that in the Chart wherein all the crimes registered against the petitioner/applicant have been listed, it could be seen that only FIR No.64 of 2021 dated 26th January, 2021 is in respect of an activity committed by two members of the syndicate. He therefore submits that requirement of filing of more than one chargesheets is not satisfied in the present case.
Mr. Rohagti further submits that the petitioner/applicant has already been released on bail in respect of other FIRs. Only on account of him being implicated in FIR No. 66 of 2021 under GCTOC Act, he is deprived of his liberty.
Mr. Rohatgi further submits that unless there is some act in respect of which an offence is registered, the provisions of the GCTOC Act cannot be invoked.
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka on the contrary submits that all the offences alleged in the FIRs which are given in the Chart, are directly or indirectly committed for the benefit of the crime syndicate of which the petitioner/applicant is a member. She relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 440. Undisputedly, the perusal of the Chart would reveal that only one offence, i.e., FIR No. 64 of Digitally signed by Page 57 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA ASJ-03,PULASTYA North-East District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:38:19 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur 2021 would show that it has been committed by seven accused out of which two are the members of the syndicate. In respect of offences at Serial Nos. 1 to 4 in the Chart, no members of the syndicate are arrayed as accused. We are of the prima facie view that for invoking the provisions of the GCTOC Act, the following conditions will have to be fulfilled:
(i) that such an activity should be prohibited by law for the time being in force;
(ii) that such an activity is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of Three years or more;
(iii) that such an activity is undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate;
(iv) that in respect of such an activity more than one charge-sheet must have been filed before a competent Court; and
(v) that the charge-sheet must have been filed within a preceding period of ten years; And
(vi) that the Courts have taken cognizance of such offences.
Undisputedly, in the present case only one charge-sheet was filed in respect of an activity which can be said to have been undertaken by the petitioner/applicant as a member of an organised crime syndicate on behalf of such syndicate. Taking into consideration this aspect of the matter and further that the petitioner/applicant has already been directed to be released on bail in respect of crime registered at Serial Nos. 1 to 5, we are inclined to allow the present Special Leave petition. The petitioner/applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as found appropriate by the Trial Court. In addition, we impose the following conditions on the petitioner/applicant:"
28. Ld. counsel for accused Jamal also placed reliance upon the case of Ranjitsing Brahamjeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 2277, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: -
"The Statement of Objects and Reasons clearly state as to why the said Act had to be enacted. Thus, it will be safe to presume that the expression 'any unlawful means' must refer to any such act which has a direct nexus with the commission of a crime which MCOCA seeks to prevent or control. In other words, an offence falling within the definition of organised crime and committed by an organised crime syndicate is the offence contemplated by the Statement of Objects and Reasons. There are offences and offences under the Indian Penal Code other penal statutes providing for punishment of three years or more and in relation to such offences more than one chargesheet may be filed. As we have indicated hereinbefore, only because a person cheats Digitally signed Page 58 of 86 by PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYAASJ-03, PRAMACHALA North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: Courts, Delhi Karkardooma 2024.10.15 16:38:37 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur or commits a criminal breach of trust, more than once, the same by itself may not be sufficient to attract the provisions of MCOCA."
29. Ld. counsel for accused Jamal referred to the cases, wherein accused persons have already been acquitted, which are as under:-
S.No. FIR No. P.S Under Section DW 1 368/08 New Usmanpur 323/452/506/34 IPC 7 2 515/07 Seelampur 506/34 IPC, 27 Arms Act 7 3 189/10 Zafrabad 307/34 IPC Admitted Document 4 60/09 Zafrabad 302/34 IPC, 27 Arms Act 5 5 344/11 Seelampur 452/506/34 IPC, 25/27 Arms 6 Act
30. It was further submitted that the law has been settled in the case of State of Maharashtra vs Shiva @Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane & Ors., AIR 2015 SC 2947.
31. Sh. Akshay Bhandari, ld. counsel for accused Jamal further submitted that cases that have ended in acquittal cannot be used to satisfy the requirements of MCOCA or showing continuity of the unlawful activity. Further, no evidence has been brought on record to show that any of the acquittals were a result of the witnesses turning hostile due to threats being extended to the witness during trials. It was further submitted that no witness has been cited in the present matter to show/depose that they had turned hostile due to any threat being extended to them.
32. It was further submitted that from the cases cited pertaining to organized crime, it was only FIR No. 60/2009 P.S Zafrabad, which was registered under Section 302 IPC. However, the said case cannot be said to be a case of organized crime, and used to satisfy the requirement of MCOCA because: -
Digitally signed Page 59 of 86 by PULASTYAPULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Date:Courts, Delhi 2024.10.15 16:38:45 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur a. The case has ended in acquittal as proved by DW-5. b. Therefore, it cannot be used to satisfy the requirements of MCOCA (Shiva @ Shivaji (supra)).
c. The accused Jamal and Kamal (the 2 members of the alleged syndicate facing trial in that case), were charge sheeted by way of supplementary chargesheet and the said supplementary chargesheet has not been filed in the present case or brought on record.
d. That in the absence of the said chargesheet there is no evidence to show that the said offence was committed as a member of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of the said syndicate. e. Further, to the contrary, in the said case, the allegation is that the deceased was shot by one Wasim and Javed and Salim @ Bobby.
f. Had it been the case of the prosecution that the said act was committed by members of the syndicate or on behalf of the syndicate, even the said Wasim and Javed would have been facing trial in the present case for being members of the syndicate or acting on behalf of the syndicate. g. However, it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the said persons are not members of the syndicate and were not acting on behalf of the syndicate and therefore, no approval, proposal or sanction was taken against them. h. That in the absence of the said supplementary chargesheet, there is no evidence that the offence was committed for pecuniary gain or any other benefit, which is an essential ingredient of continuing unlawful activity and organized crime as defined in the Act.
i. The said aspect can be seen from the judgment of acquittal in the said case, where there is no mention that pecuniary gain or other advantage was involved in the matter. j. Therefore, the said case cannot be construed as a case of organized crime and adverse inference under Section 114 Evidence Act is required to be drawn against the prosecution for failing to bring the said supplementary chargesheet on record.
33. It was further submitted that in FIR No. 238/12 PS New Usmanpur, it was alleged that the complainant was threatened to withdraw the case filed by them. The said allegation does not Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 60 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts,+0530 16:38:52 Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur satisfy the requirement of pecuniary gain or other advantage and same cannot be used to satisfy the requirement of MCOCA. It was further submitted that in FIR No. 258/12, P.S Seelampur, under Section 307/34 IPC, it was alleged that since the complainant had refused to give money, members of the syndicate fired at them. In the said case, shots were fired by Mullah Shakil at the complainant. However, no approval, sanction or proposal was moved against the accused under MCOCA. Therefore, had it been the case of the prosecution that the said act was committed as members or on behalf of the syndicate, even the said Mullah Shakil would have been facing trial in the present matter. In the absence of the same, it cannot be said that the said offence was committed on behalf of or as members of the syndicate. It was further submitted that the said acts do not satisfy the requirement of being acts committed for pecuniary gain or other advantage for MCOCA.
34. Sh. Akshay Bhandari, ld. counsel for accused Jamal further submitted that in the proposal and sanction, the prosecution has alleged that alleged syndicate used to commit various offences and had taken them into consideration without analysing if the said acts were committed for any pecuniary gain or other advantage. In the said documents, it was alleged that the acts were committed to force people to transfer their properties in the name of the syndicate members. However, not a single case has been brought on record to show that any such case has ever been filed. It was further submitted that in his cross-examination, IO/PW70 testified that several cases had the element of other advantage as they were committed to create fear in the public. It Digitally signed Page 61 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East PRAMACHALADistrict, PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2024.10.15 16:38:59 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur was further submitted that IO reached the said conclusion on the basis of allegations made in those chargesheets. It was further submitted that bald and vague allegations that the offence was committed to create fear in the public without any other benefit pecuniary or otherwise, cannot amount to other advantage to satisfy the requirements of MCOCA. Merely stating that the offence was committed to create fear in the public without anything more cannot amount to other advantage as required for MCCOA. It was further submitted that taking all the chargesheets alleged against the said syndicate, there is no continuing unlawful activity as separate offences have been committed for separate reasons and there is no continuity of the offences to show that any such syndicate existed. It was further submitted that no confession statement can be invoked without proving the foundation of the Act under section 18 of MCOC Act. In the absence of Section 3 being satisfied, section 4 cannot be satisfied. It was further submitted that MCOCA is not a stand alone offence. In the present matter, the accused persons have been chargesheeted only under MCOCA and the same is not in accordance with law.
35. Per contra, Sh. Gaurav Singh, ld. Addl. PP for State argued that testimony of PW33/Mohd. Mobin, PW45/protected witness 'B', PW46/protected witness 'D' and PW49/protected witness 'E', show that the accused persons were involved in organised crime.
36. During his oral submissions, Sh. Rajiv Mohan, ld. counsel for complainant argued that there is requirement to show commission of organised crime and to show that which activity was considered to be organised crime, leading to registration of Digitally signed Page 62 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2024.10.15 16:39:10 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur FIR. He further argued that FIR No. 258/2012 was that organised crime, which led to registration of this FIR. FIR in the present case was registered in the month of August 2013 and FIR No. 258/2012 was registered on 28.07.2012. It was further argued that the period of last 10 years, in the present case has to be calculated from the date when permission was granted to register the FIR in this case, which would go back up to August 2003. It was further argued that the requirement of law is fulfilled with commonality of all accused persons being charged in FIR No. 258/2012 and the incidents which took place up to date of sanction for prosecution in this case, can be looked into in this case.
36.1 Sh. Rajiv Mohan, ld. counsel for complainant filed written submissions. In support of his contentions, ld. counsel for complainant relied upon certain case laws, which are as under: -
36.2 Case of Jagmohan @ Mahar Singh v. Commissioner of Police, 2007 (1) SCC 292, to submit that "......... the petitioner is not being prosecuted for whatever he did in the past. He is being prosecuted for continuing with the unlawful activity." 36.3 Case of Jai Singh Ashraf Lal Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 All M.R. (Crl.) 1506, to submit that trial of a person under MCOCA is not hit by Article 20(1) of Constitution of India. 36.4 Cases of Om Prakash Srivastava v. State of Delhi, 2009 (164) DLT 218 and Bharat Shanti Lal Shah v. State of Maharashtra, Crl.W.P. No. 27/2003, to submit that "So far as the objection to taking into account the cases in which an acquittal has taken place in view of bar of Article (20) of Constitution of India is concerned, one has to keep in mind that the accused is not being asked to stand trial for these cases. These cases are cited only to say that he has been accused in the past."
36.5 Case of Maharashtra v. Jagan Ganshing Nepali @ Jagya & Anr., Crl. Appeal No. 20/2011, decided on 05.08.2011 by Hon'ble Digitally signed Page 63 of 86 by PULASTYA PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:39:18 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur Bombay High Court, to submit that the term 'other advantage' cannot be read as ejusdem genesis with the word 'pecuniary benefits' and 'undue economic', and same must be given wider meaning and it would include Gang Supremacy. 36.6 Cases of Manoj Ramesh Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 622; Mohd. Farrukh Abdul Gaffar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, JT 2009 (11) SC 47 and Govind Sakharam Ubhe v.
State of Maharashtra, 2009 All MR (Crl.) 1903 (Bombay High Court); to submit that member of Crime Syndicate operates either singly or jointly in commission of Organized Crime. They can operate in different module. The task of activities of an Organized Crime Syndicate can be taken by a single person alone without being involved in any activity in past. 36.7 Sh. Rajiv Mohan, ld. counsel for complainant further submitted that in this trial, the prosecution was required to establish following facts: -
(i) That a syndicate was in existence of Section 2(f) of MCOCA.
(ii) That this syndicate indulged in an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force.
(iii) This activity was undertaken either singly or jointly as an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate.
(iv) In respect of such an activity more than one chargesheets must have been filed before the court of competent jurisdiction.
(v) That more than one chargesheets must have been filed within preceding period of 10 years.
(vi) The offence involved in these chargesheet must be cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more.
(vii) Court has taken the cognizance of such offence.
36.8 It was further submitted that, if a syndicate is having such a continuing unlawful activity as follows: -
(i) If any person commits an activity either singly or jointly as a member of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate.Digitally signed by PULASTYA
PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
Page 64 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala)
PRAMACHALA
ASJ-03, Date:
North-East District,
2024.10.15
16:39:26
Karkardooma +0530
Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015
State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc.
SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur
(ii) This activity must be committed by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means; and
(iii) That such activity must be committed with an objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic advantage or other advantage for himself or for any other person.
36.9 Sh. Rajiv Mohan, ld. counsel for complainant further submitted that in this case approval under Section 23(1)(a) was granted by competent authority on 14.08.2013. It was further submitted that the activity of syndicate which can be considered, must be of the period of last preceding ten (10) years i.e. the activity from 14.08.20003 can be considered for the purpose of fulfilling the definition of "Continuing Unlawful Activity" as defined under Section 2(d) of MCOCA. It was further submitted that in the present case, activity reported vide FIR No. 258/2012, PS Seelampur, under Section 307/326/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act is being considered as Organized Crime Activity, which was committed by accused persons. It was further submitted that to prove this Organized Crime Activity, prosecution examined complainant Mohd. Mobin (PW33). PW33 testified about an activity committed on 10.02.2011 at about 8 PM when violence was used by accused Kamal with Yaseen (brother of PW33), at that time Kamal was having a Pistol and 2-3 associates of Kamal were present with him. Thereafter, on 28.07.2012 all these accused again committed violence with PW33. Thereafter, on 09.12.2012 accused Kamal and Umar @ Pau along with their associates fired upon nephew of PW33. In this manner PW33 deposed about the activities of this group of persons, where violence or threat of violence or intimidation was used to gain the pecuniary benefits or undue economic advantage for himself or for others. It was further submitted that prosecution relied upon list of involvement of all the accused persons and all the accused persons have admitted the same under Section 294 Cr.P.C. Said list makes out the case that a syndicate as defined under Section 2(f) of MCOCA was in existence since prior to year 2012 and all these accused persons were part of that group or gang.
Digitally signed Page 65 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYAPRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date:
Karkardooma 2024.10.15 Courts, Delhi 16:39:33 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur 36.10 In the written submission, Sh. Rajiv Mohan further submitted that the record of previous involvements of all the accused persons as admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C., clearly demonstrate that in last preceding 10 years from 14.08.2013 this syndicate either singly or jointly, remained involved in the activity which qualifies the definition of Continuing Unlawful Activity or defined u/s 2(d) of MCOCA. It was further submitted that the activities reported by complainant Mohd. Mobin (PW33) were the activities, which qualified the definition of Organized Crime as defined u/s 2 (e) of MCOCA, because these activities were undertaken by members of an Organized Crime Syndicate either singly or jointly as member of syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. It was further submitted that PW52/D. Rishi Pal, DCP had recorded confessional statement of accused Jamal under Section 18 of MCOCA (Ex.PW52/A and Ex.PW52/B).
Compliance of provisions of Sec. 18 of MCOCA were not disputed by the accused persons during the trial. Section 18 of MCOCA provides that the confession recorded by DCP under the provision of Section 18 by complying all the criteria of Section 18 of MCOCA, will be admissible against the matter as well as all accused faced trial in same trial. In the light of provisions of Section 18, the confession (Ex.PW52/A) can be read in evidence. It was further submitted that while committing the activities as deposed by PW33/Mohd. Mobin, accused persons used illegal weapons. Section 22(1)(a) and Section 22(1)(b) creates a presumption that unless the contrary is proved the accused has committed such offence. It was further submitted that Section 17 (1) of MCOCA makes provisions for Special Rule of Evidence. As per this provision, for the purpose of trial and punishment under this Act, the court may take into consideration of fact of accused being bound down under Section 107 or 110 of Cr.P.C. or of any other law relating to preventive detention. In this case accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin and accused Umar @ Pau as well as accused Jamal @ Ranjha were externed under 47 Delhi Police Act vide orders Ex.PW-21/A, Ex.PW-21/B and Ex.PW-21/C. This fact was proved by PW21/SI V. Ganesh Bhai. Ld. counsel Digitally signed Page 66 of 86 by PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:39:41 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur further submitted that prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against all the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 3(1), 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOCA. 36.11 Subsequently, in his additional written submissions, Sh. Rajiv Mohan, ld. counsel for complainant further submitted that Section 3 of MCOCA provides punishment for commission of organized crime and this section is categorizing the activities related to organized crime in the manner as enumerated in Section 3(1) to 3(5) of the Act. The organized crime is defined under Section 2(e) of MCOCA. It was further submitted that definition of organized crime does not postulate or does not make mandatory the registration of any offence with respect to the activity as made punishable under Section 3 of MCOCA. It was further submitted that the scheme of Act shows that it means continuing unlawful activity which is undertaken by an individual either singly or jointly as a member of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. So, if in continuation of past continuing unlawful activity as defined under Section 2(d), an activity is done, with violence, threat of violence or intimidation for other undue economic advantage or for other unlawful gains, it would be organized crime. This activity if comes to knowledge of law enforcing agency and if it qualifies the criteria of Section 2(d) and 2(f), the activity will be organized crime. It was further submitted that it is not necessary that regarding this activity any offence is registered under IPC or other statute in the form of FIR. Registration of case is requirement of Continuing unlawful activity, not the organized crime. It was further submitted that the statement given by PW33/Mohd. Mobin proves this activity as organized crime because it involves the Continuing Unlawful Activity and this activity as deposed by PW33, involves violence, threat of violence and intimidation and same has been done with the objective of gaining undue economic advantage or other advantage. Therefore, prosecution succeeded in proving the case for offences punishable under Section 3(1), 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOCA.
Digitally signed by PULASTYAPULASTYA PRAMACHALA Page 67 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 ASJ-03, North-East District, 16:39:48 Karkardooma +0530 Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur
37. In the written submissions filed on behalf of complainant, Sh.
Javed Khan, submitted that on 02.07.2016, accused Mohd. Jamal @ Ranjha had stated before the then ld. CMM (N/E) that police had interrogated him and his statement was recorded. Accused Jamal had further stated that he was not tortured in any manner by the police during his interrogation. Referring to the testimony of PW45, it was submitted that complainant was not only the person who was victim from the hands of accused persons, but few persons made courage to appear before the court and made statement. In respect of offence under Section 3 of the Act, it was submitted that unlawful arms and other materials including documents or papers recovered from the possession of the accused, were used in commission of such offence. The materials are Ex.PW54/A, Ex.PW60/B, Ex.PW65/D1, Ex.PW65/D2, Ex.PW65/D3, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.A-35/5, Ex.A-36, Ex.A-37. It was further submitted that in FIR No. 740/2007, PS Gokulpuri, accused Jamal @ Ranjha was convicted. APPRECIATION OF LAW, FACTS AND EVIDENCE LAW PROVISIONS & LEGAL PRINCIPLES
38. In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of both the sides, it would be apt to reproduce the Clauses 'd', 'e' and 'f' of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of MCOCA. These read as under: -
"(d) "continuing unlawful activity" means 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 have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence;
(e) "organized crime" means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organized crime Digitally signed by Page 68 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:39:58 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency;
(f) "organized crime syndicate" means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organized crime;"
25. Section 3 of MCOCA provides for punishment for organised crime and states as under - (1) Whoever commits an offence of organised crime shall, -
"(i) if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees one lac;
(ii) in any other case, 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 a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.
(2) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates, abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organised crime or any act preparatory to organised crime, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs. (3) Whoever harbours or conceals or attempts to harbour or conceal, any member of an organised crime syndicate 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 a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs. (4) Any person who is a member of an organised crime syndicate 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 a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.
(5) Whoever holds any property derived or obtained from commission of an organised crime or which has been acquired through the organised crime syndicate funds shall be punishable with a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees two lacs."
26. From the definitions of organized crime syndicate as defined u/s 2(f) of the MCOCA, organized crime as defined u/s 2(e) of the Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 69 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALAASJ-03, Date:North-East District, Karkardooma 2024.10.15 Courts, Delhi 16:40:06 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur MCOCA and continuing unlawful activity as defined u/s 2(d) of the MCOCA, it is well reflected that these three elements are interdependent. The existence of one element leads to the establishment of the other and vice versa.
27. As per section 2(f) of the MCOCA, to establish existence of an organized crime syndicate, it has to be shown that there was group of two or more persons who either singly or jointly, indulged in activities of organized crime as a syndicate or a gang. Therefore, as per section 2(f) of the MCOCA, it is not sufficient that there is a group of two or more persons who commit crime as a syndicate or a gang, but what is further required, is that such crime so committed also fulfills the conditions which shall make it an organized crime. Similarly, according to Section 2(e) an organized crime is any continuing unlawful activity done by a person either singly or jointly but as a member of a crime syndicate or on behalf of such crime syndicate. At the same time, it is further required that this continuing unlawful activity is done/committed by using violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means and should be done with an objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other advantages for himself or for any person, or for promoting insurgency. Therefore, for the existence of an organized crime syndicate, commission of organized crime is a sine qua non and an act alleged as organized crime has to necessarily fall within the definition of continuing unlawful activity which is provided u/s 2(d) of the MCOCA. At the same time, it also has to satisfy the purposes and the means for commission of crime as provided in section 2(e) of the MCOCA.
Digitally signed Page 70 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala)by PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2024.10.15 16:40:15 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur A continuing unlawful activity is defined u/s 2(d) of the MCOCA as an activity which is prohibited by the law for the time being in force and this activity has to be a cognizable offence carrying punishment of three years or more. Furthermore, this activity should have been undertaken either singly or jointly as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate and further, in respect of this activity, in preceding period of 10 years, more than one chargesheet should have been filed before a court of the competent jurisdiction which had taken cognizance of such offence.
28. Hon'ble Bombay High Court dealt with the requisite criteria to charge a person with allegation of committing organized crime. The relevant observations of the Bombay High Court in the case titled as Madan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 483, are reproduced herein below: -
"....for charging a person of organized crime or being a member of organized crime syndicate, 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 cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more, iv. undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of organised crime syndicate i.e. acting as a syndicate or a gang, or on behalf of such syndicate.
v. (a) in respect of similar activities (in the past) more than one chargesheets have been filed in competent court within the preceding period of ten years
(b) and the court has taken cognizance of such offence vi. The activity is undertaken by:
(a) violence, or
(b) threat of violence, or intimidation or
(c) coercion or
(d) other unlawful means.
vii. (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."
Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 71 of 86 PRAMACHALAPULASTYA(Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East Date: District, 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:40:23 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur
29. It was further observed in aforesaid judgment as under: -
"40. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor rightly submitted that conviction or acquittal are not relevant and for this purpose relied on observations in judgment in Bharat Shantilal Shah V. State of Maharashtra, 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1061 (para 27) and State of Maharashtra V. Bharat Shantilal Shah, 2008 AIR SCW 6431, on which even the learned counsel for appellants had placed reliance.
41. Since conviction or acquittal in a case previously filed are irrelevant, it would be unnecessary to look into evidence in respect of such crimes tendered in the present trial.
52. For proving the offence of organized crime, it has to be proved among other things that accused indulged in continuing unlawful activity. For proving involvement in continuing unlawful activity, it is not necessary to prove the past crime, but only the fact that a chargesheet has been filed in respect of that crime, that the crime bears punishment of three years or more and that the court has taken cognizance of the crime. Therefore, examining witnesses in proof of past crime itself is unnecessary and also undesirable, because it is not the requirement or ingredient of offences under MCOC Act".
30. In this case, following legal principles were summarized as related to MCOCA: -
"(i) As held by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and others V. Lalit Nagpal Somdatta Nagpal and another, reported at (2007) 4 SCC 171, the provisions of MCOC Act have to be strictly interpreted.
(ii) Since the definition clauses, Sections 2(d), (e) and (f), use the word 'means', the definition are exhaustive.
(iii) The definitions are unambiguous and words used are not susceptible to two interpretations.
(iv) As observed by the Apex Court in Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsing Sharma V. State of Maharashtra and another, reported at 2005 Cri. LJ 2533, the words 'other unlawful means' have to be read ejusdem generis, the phrases 'by use of violence' etc.
(v) Similarly, the words 'other advantage' has to be read ejusdem generis 'pecuniary benefits' as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Sherbahadur Akram Khan and others v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2007(1) Bom CR (Cri) 26.
(vi) As held by a Division bench of this Court in Bharat Shantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1061, and Jaising Asharfilal Yadav and others v. State of Maharashtra and another, reported at 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1506, continuing unlawful activity evidenced by more than one chargesheets is one of the ingredients of the offence of Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 72 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma 16:40:32 Courts, +0530Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur organized crime and the purpose thereof is to see antecedents and not to convict, without proof of other facts which constitute the ingredients of Section 2(e) and Section 3, which respectively define commission of offence of organized crime and prescribe punishment.
(vii) Approval for recording information under Section 23 of MCOC Act would not restrict the scope of investigation and would not exclude filing of chargesheets in respect of incidents or involvement of persons disclosed in course of investigation.
(viii) There would have to be some act or omission which amounts to organized crime after the Act came into force, in respect of which the accused is sought to be tried to the first time, in the Special Court (i.e. has not been or is not being tried elsewhere)."
31. Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the ambit of the term 'other advantage' as used in the definition of 'organized crime'. In that process, in the case of Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 678, hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -
"We have no hesitation in endorsing the views of Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Jagan Gagansingh Nepali @ Jagya (supra). Looking to the object and purpose of this enactment, the expression 'other advantage' cannot be read in a restrictive manner and is required to be given its full effect. The High Court has rightly said that there could be advantage to a person committing a crime which may not be directly leading to pecuniary advantage or benefit but could be of getting a strong hold or supremacy in the society or even in the syndicate itself. As noticed above, the purpose of this enactment is to be kept in view while interpreting any expression therein and in the name of strict construction, its spirit and object cannot be whittled down."
32. In respect of the ambit of the term 'unlawful means' as used in the definition of 'organized crime', Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294, observed as under: -
"24. The Statement of Objects and Reasons clearly states as to why the said Act had to be enacted. Thus, it will be safe to presume that the expression "any unlawful means" must refer to any such act which has a direct nexus with the commission of a crime which MCOCA seeks to prevent or control. In other words, an offence falling within the definition of organised crime and committed by an organised crime syndicate is the offence contemplated by the Statement of Objects and Reasons. There are offences and offences under the Penal Code, 1860 and other penal statutes providing for punishment of three Digitally signed by Page 73 of 86 PULASTYA(Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2024.10.15 16:40:40 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur years or more and in relation to such offences more than one charge- sheet may be filed. As we have indicated hereinbefore, only because a person cheats or commits a criminal breach of trust, more than once, the same by itself may not be sufficient to attract the provisions of MCOCA. Furthermore, mens rea is a necessary ingredient for commission of a crime under MCOCA."
33. Thus, what has to be seen by the court in this case is, whether there existed a group or gang which indulged into continued unlawful activity and such unlawful activity was fulfilling the parameters of purposes and means of commission of crime as per section 2(e) of the MCOCA and thus, was an activity committed by or on behalf of an organised crime syndicate.
34. I am in agreement with the common contention made by ld.
counsel for complainant as well as ld. counsels for defence, that its not any kind of continuing unlawful activity which is made punishable in the Act. It is commission of organised crime, which is punishable u/s 3(1) of the Act. This is so apparent from the language used in Section 3(1) of the Act itself. 'Organised Crime' is defined separately from 'continuing unlawful activity', and definition of latter makes it much clear that law makers qualified this term to incorporate the requisites of organised crime. Hence, for the purpose of S. 3(1) of the Act, one has to look into fulfillment of requisites of 'organised crime', and mere reference to 'some continuing unlawful activity' cannot be sufficient. To refer to the ambit of 'organised crime', I would quote some relevant observations made by Supreme Court in the case of Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 7 SCC 440, which are as follows: -
"43.Before getting into the nuances of the said definition of "continuing unlawful activity", it will be worthwhile to get a broad idea of the definition of "organised crime" under Section 2(1)(e) and "organised crime syndicate" under Section 2(1)(f). An "organised crime" should be Digitally signed Page 74 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA North-East District, Karkardooma Date: Courts, Delhi 2024.10.15 16:40:49 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur any "continuing unlawful activity" either by an individual singly or jointly, either as a member of an "organised crime syndicate" or on behalf of such syndicate. The main ingredient of the said definition is that such "continuing unlawful activity" should have been indulged in by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means. Further, such violence and other activity should have been indulged in with an objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or for any other person or for promoting insurgency. Therefore, an "organised crime" by nature of violent action indulged in by an individual singly or jointly either as a member of an "organised crime syndicate" or on behalf of such syndicate should have been either with an object of making pecuniary gains or undue economic or other advantage or for promoting insurgency. If the object was for making pecuniary gains it can be either for himself or for any other person. But we notice for promoting insurgency, there is no such requirement of any personal interest or the interest of any other person or body. The mere indulgence in a violent activity, etc. either for pecuniary gain or other advantage or for promoting insurgency as an individual, either singly or jointly as a member of "organised crime syndicate" or on behalf of a such syndicate would be sufficient for bringing the said activity within the four corners of the definition of "organised crime"."
35. In the same case Supreme Court explained that "44.An "organised crime syndicate" is a group of two or more persons who by acting singly or collectively as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of "organised crime"."
36. It must be further appreciated that Section 3 (1) of MCOCA provides for different punishment for different kind of offences. If the offence resulted into death of someone, punishment provided is that of death or life imprisonment. For other kind of consequences of the offence committed by the accused persons, they are liable for minimum sentence of 5 years extendable to life imprisonment. Thus, the distinct sentence provided for distinct consequence of the offence, show that such punishment is in respect of some new crime/offence rather than past offence. This provision thus, makes it amply clear that there has to be a latest commission of an offence as part of continued unlawful activity Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 75 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:40:57 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur and falling into the category of organized crime, so as to trigger the prosecution of accused under MCOCA. The observations of higher courts have been consistent on this aspect. In the case of Madan (supra), when the court mentioned about requirement of filing of more than one chargesheets within preceding 10 years, it used the expression "in respect of similar activities (in the past)". This makes out a clear-cut requirement of a distinct activity from the past cases, to make out a case under MCOCA. Same principle emerges from the observations made by Supreme Court in the case of Shiva (supra).
37. In order to illustrate this legal position, I would refer to some other observations made by the higher courts, touching upon the same issue. In the case of Darasing & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR Online 2021 BOM 2585, High Court of Bombay observed as under: -
"The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellants were merely charged and tried for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) without any substantive crime. Merely being involved in several crimes without being involved in any other crime to elevate the continuing unlawful activity to the case of organized crime as defined under Section 2(1)(e) would not be sufficient. Therefore, the appellants could not have been convicted and sentenced only for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) in the absence of any substantive crime so as to constitute an organized crime. The learned Judge of the Special Court has not considered all these aspects and has convicted and sentenced the appellants merely for being involved in continuing unlawful activity which in itself is not an offence which is made punishable under the MCOC Act."
25. In the case of Prafulla (supra), High Court of Bombay observed as under: -
"47. A look at provisions of the punishment, Section 3 of the MCOCA would fortify this conclusion. Clauses (i) and (ii) of Sub- section (1) would show that "if such offence has resulted in death of any person", the offence of organised crime would attract death Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 76 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:41:04 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur sentence or life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. One Lakh. Now, if only old charge sheets should be held as enough, a person acquitted of a murder charge in the past would be liable to be sent for a life term, in spite of acquittal, simply because a chargesheet had been filed in the past. Had this been contemplated, the learned Judge, Special Court, would have charged Accused No.1/I Shiva of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(i) of MCOCA and not one punishable under Section 3(1)(ii) of the MCOCA, since Shiva had been charged once of murder (Sr. No. 9 in the chart) and acquitted. Same would hold good about the other gangsters. Advocate Tiwari, the learned counsel for Mehmood and others relying on judgment of the Supreme Court in Dilip Singh v. State of Punjab, reported at 1997(3) Current Criminal Journal 223, (submitted) that charge sheets cannot be made the basis of guilt or innocence of an accused. Therefore, it is clear that the offences referred to in various charge sheets are not "such offence(s)" and consequently an offence, punishable under Section 3 of the MCOCA has to be different from those for which such accused had been charge sheeted in the past. Past criminal activity only aggravates the continued activity amounting to an offence and attracts provisions of MCOCA.
48. In view of this, since the appellants are not shown to have indulged in any crime which can be said to be continuation of past criminal activity provisions of Section 3(1) of the MCOCA are not attracted. It cannot be said that the appellants have committed the offence of organised crime."
26. In the case of Prasad Shrikant Purohit (supra), Supreme Court observed as under: -
"66. ............In this respect, we will have to bear in mind that the implication of MCOCA would come into play only after the third occurrence takes place and only after that it will have to be seen whether on the earlier two such occasions involvement of someone jointly or singly, either as a member of an "organised crime syndicate" or on its behalf, indulged in a crime in respect of which a charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent court which court had taken cognizance of such offence."
PERIOD OF PRECEDING 10 YEARS & NATURE OF PAST CASES
27. Ld. counsel for complainant made another submission that period of preceding 10 years can be counted from the date of according sanction for registration of FIR. However, this argument does not hold ground in view of observations made by Supreme Court in the case of Prasad Shrikant Purohit (Supra), wherein it was held Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 77 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts,+0530 16:41:12 Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur as follows: -
"54.The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that under Section 2(1)(d), in order to constitute a "continuing unlawful activity" two earlier charge-sheets in the preceding 10 years should exist and that such charge-sheets should have been taken cognizance by the competent court within the said period of 10 years and it must have been accomplished. It was also contended that for ascertaining the said position, the date of the third occurrence should be the relevant date for counting the preceding 10 years. In so far as that claim is concerned, it can be straightaway accepted that since Section 2(1)(d) uses the expression "an activity" in the very opening set of expressions, which is prohibited by law, the date of such activity, namely, the third one can be taken as the relevant date for the purpose of finding out the two earlier charge-sheets in the preceding 10 years, in which event in the present case, the preceding 10 years will have to be counted from 29-9-2008 which was the date when the third occurrence of Malegaon bomb blast took place."
28. In the same case it was further held that "45.By conspectus reading of the above three definitions, if in the preceding 10 years from the date of third continuing unlawful activity if more than one charge-sheet has been filed before a competent court which had taken cognizance of such offence which would result in imposition of a punishment of three years or more, undertaken by a person individually or jointly either as a member of an "organised crime syndicate" or on its behalf, such crime if falls within the definition of "organised crime", the invocation of MCOCA would be the resultant position."
29. Thus, it also becomes apparent that the two cases of the past, should also be falling into the category of organised crime. Meaning thereby, reference to any other kind of case, against one or more than one accused person, would not serve the purpose for invocation of the Act.
EFFECT OF DECISION IN PAST CASES
25. As pointed out by the courts, and also as per mandate of law, neither an accused can be prosecuted for same acts more than once in two different trials, nor can he be punished for same acts more than once. Similarly, for a particular crime there has to be Digitally signed by Page 78 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2024.10.15 16:41:20 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur one decision from the court. Once, acquitted or convicted by a court for such criminal activity, that accused cannot be held guilty for same activity by another court in a different trial. The case laws cited by Sh. Rajiv Mohan i.e. case of Jagmohan (supra) and Omprakash Srivastav (supra) also endorse this view.
26. In the case of Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 8 SCC 282, Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of effect of decision in the past cases (last 10 years) held as follows: -
"58.The submissions about taking irrelevant factors into account with reference to the said two cases resulting in acquittal and discharge must fail for the simple reason that for the purpose of clause (d) of Section 2(1) of Mcoca, the result of a particular matter is not decisive of the question as to whether the activity in question answers to the description of "continuing unlawful activity" or not. These had not been offences committed single-handedly by the appellant and charge- sheets were indeed filed therein. The matter of settlement because of cross-cases or a matter of acquittal because of the witnesses not turning up, could hardly be of any relevance so far as clause (d) of Section 2(1) of Mcoca is concerned. Therefore, it cannot be said that any irrelevant matter has been taken into consideration by the sanctioning authority."
27. Thus, the arguments based of decisions given in past cases, do not help much. As reiterated in the case of Shiva (supra), the chargesheets in past two cases, only fulfill one of the requisites. The judgment in the case of Shiva (supra), referred to acquittal in two cases. However, that reference was made while dealing with second requirement, i.e. to prove continued unlawful activity. That aspect in relation to this case shall be discussed hereinafter.
THIRD INSTANCE OF ORGANISED CRIME
28. It is to be seen if there was third instance of crime, which was also fulfilling the above-mentioned requisites of organised crime, so as to provide a cause of action to invoke MCOC Act?
Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 79 of 86 PULASTYA (PulastyaPRAMACHALA Pramachala) PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts,+0530 16:41:28 Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur
29. Coming back to the facts of this case, I find that in the chargesheets, IO referred to some cases registered before registration of this case. But the fact remains that in the present case prosecution did not allege about a substantial offence, which was found to be an organized crime in continuity of past offences. Moreover, it is also not the case of prosecution that any of accused persons was convicted in the last case, which could be made basis to say that having convicted for an offence which was in continuity of unlawful activities and was an organized crime, they are liable to be punished under different clauses of Section 3 of MCOCA.
30. This case has its roots in the application moved by complainant/PW33 in the case of State v. Mohd. Afjal, FIR-18/09 P.S. Seelampur. This application was moved under S.9 of MCOCA and S.319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the accused persons under MCOCA. However, the court concerned vide order dt. 29.07.2013 directed SHO to register FIR. Thereafter, on the basis of sanction accorded by PW7, this FIR was registered. I shall deal with the arguments regarding validity of that sanction later. Right now, the quest is to look for the activity, which can be treated as the third instance of organized crime, to trigger invocation of MCOCA.
31. In the chargesheet, IO referred to aforesaid FIR 18/09 being decided into conviction of Mohd. Afjal. A kind of support has been taken from that decision, on the grounds of Mohd. Afjal being member of same family. The chargesheet in a way depicts that accused persons herein and Mohd. Afjal had been part of same crime syndicate. That is the reason that IO referred to Digitally signed Page 80 of 86 by PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA ASJ-03,PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA North-East District, Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16:41:50 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur property in the name of Mohd. Afjal and his wife, obtained documents related to the same and relied upon the same in this case. However, police did not opt to file supplementary chargesheet in FIR 18/09 against these accused persons. In any case, question remains as to which incident was treated by police to be third instance of organized crime. Ld. counsel for complainant argued that the said incident/case is FIR 258/12 P.S. Seelampur. However, this argument does not find support from the chargesheet.
32.In a case of MCOCA, the chargesheet has to explain as to which two cases in last 10 years, were falling in the category of organized crime? It has to be further explained as to which incident/case was treated as instance of continued unlawful activity, so as to invoke MCOCA. The period of last 10 years has to be counted from the third instance of organized crime. But, unfortunately, both the chargesheets in this case are completely silent in respect of aforesaid questions/facts. These requirements were not probably realized by police, may be on account of different notion of law. However, it remains a matter of repetition only that giving a list of numerous past cases, does not help much in a case of MCOCA, unless besides showing continued instance of organized crime, it is shown and pointed out as which two past cases were outcome of organized crime, wherein there was punishment for more than 3 years and court had taken cognizance. Neither proposal for sanction for registration of FIR, nor chargesheets, nor sanction order, explained aforesaid questions.
33. As already said, in this case police were not even conscious of Digitally signed Page 81 of 86 by PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma 16:41:58Courts, +0530 Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur aforesaid requirements. To illustrate this, it would be relevant to refer to some parts from the testimony of IO/PW70, which are as follows: -
"The period of last 10 years for the purpose of previous involvement of accused persons in the present case, consideration was taken from the date of registration of FIR in this case."
This statement shows that IO was not having any concrete notion regarding third instance of organized crime, so as to count the period from the date of commission of that crime.
34. IO/PW70 further deposed that: -
"I had considered all cases of previous involvements, which included the cases, wherein accused persons committed crime as member of syndicate.
Q:- What were the 2 cases relied upon by you in the present case, wherein cognizance were taken during preceding 10 years? A:- 21 cases as mentioned from point A on page 15 to point A1 on page no. 17 of the main chargesheet, were relied upon with congnizance orders passed therein, for the purpose of present case."
35. Subsequently IO referred to some FIRs to say that accused persons wanted to get "other advantage" in those cases. He also referred to FIR 258/12 and 238/12 as such cases. But, at the same time he referred to FIR 514/07 P.S. Seelampur also, as one of such cases considered by him, which according to him fell in the category of organized crime. However, it was not disputed by him that this was a case u/s 323/341 IPC, having maximum punishment for period less than 3 years. Thus, it does appear that long list of cases was mentioned, without properly filtering them to ascertain if they actually fell in the category of organized crime. IO/PW70 deposed that "this case is only for offence under MCOCA and in the supplementary chargesheet, Section 174 A IPC was invoked against accused Jamal." Thus, it is well apparent that this case was not based on any such fresh incident Digitally signed Page 82 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) by PULASTYA PULASTYA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2024.10.15 16:42:07 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur of organized crime, which was taken up for consideration for invoking MCOCA.
36. I shall now also refer to testimony of PW7, who had accorded sanction for registration of FIR. In his cross examination by the defence counsel, PW7 deposed that "FIR no.258/12. PS Seelampur was not the last case in the list of cases mentioned in proposal. FIR no. 254/12, PS Jafrabad was subsequent to the incident to the incident of 258/12 and hence, it cannot be said that for the purpose of according permission to register FIR under MACOCA, FIR no. 258/12 PS Seelampur was the latest cause of action." Such statement of PW7 makes it clear that FIR 258/12 was not the case, which was treated as latest cause of action i.e. the third instance of organized crime, by the police. Testimony of IO also refers to this case as one of the past cases only. Chargesheet refers to FIR 254/12 also, as one of those cases wherein cognizance was taken by the court. Thus, it becomes well apparent that police did not look for the third instance of organized crime, before invoking MCOCA against the accused persons.
SANCTION
37. Now, I shall deal with the arguments related to validity of sanction. The foregoing discussion and findings in respect of this case, leave no doubt that sanction for registration of FIR in this case, was accorded without caring to see if there were so much informations given in the proposal or otherwise, so as to satisfy the requisite conditions to invoke MCOCA. Thus, apparently this sanction was accorded without due application of mind. In fact, same is my finding in respect to sanctions accorded for Digitally signed Page 83 of 86 by PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, PRAMACHALA North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2024.10.15 16:42:14 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur prosecution of the accused persons, for the same reasons that sanctioning authority did not even check if all requisite conditions for invoking MCOCA were fulfilled. Hence, I have no second thoughts to say that all these sanctions were passed without due application of mind.
CONFESSION
38. I am conscious of the law that confession made under Section 18 of the Act, is admissible in evidence. However, when this case was registered on the basis of an invalid sanction, and when this case is found lacking fulfilling the requisite conditions to invoke MCOCA, then there cannot be any question of a confessional statement recorded in this case to be valid.
39. Even otherwise, confessional evidence are not very strong piece of evidence. They can be best used when there are other independent evidences to prove the facts, which are subject matter of confession. In case of extra judicial confession, which is also admissible in evidence, Supreme Court in the case of Suresh v. State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 654, held that same cannot be solely utilized to convict a person, when the surrounding circumstances are improbable and create suspicion.
40. On the basis of evaluation of the facts and legal principles applied by the prosecution, to allege commission of organized crime by the accused persons in this case, I find that the prosecution has not satisfied the necessary legal ingredients to invoke and prosecute the accused persons for committing organized crime.
41.Now, the question is that if the allegations of acquiring properties out of proceeds of organized crime stand proved, as per charges Digitally signed Page 84 of 86 by PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PULASTYA ASJ-03, PRAMACHALA North-East District, PRAMACHALAKarkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2024.10.15 16:42:22 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur u/s 3 (4) & (5) of the Act? Similarly, charges for offence u/s 3 (2) & (3) of the Act, are also to be looked into. All these charges required that prosecution would have proved existence of a crime syndicate and commission of organized crime. But, merely by giving list of past cases, neither existence of crime syndicate is proved nor commission of organized crime stands proved. Prosecution referred to certain properties, which were apparently not in the name of any accused. IO/PW70 deposed that he could find properties in the name of accused Iqbal Gazi and Jamal. It cannot be any property which invites attention in such cases. It has to be a property acquired out of proceeds of organised crime and this fact must be proved. Merely making allegations that properties were acquired out of illegal business or acts, cannot be sufficient. Prosecution tried to take shelter of presumptions under the Act, but those provisions come into play on proving the basic requisite facts, which were not proved in this case. Complainant/PW33 was heavily relied upon witness of the prosecution, however, his testimony does not help the case of prosecution in this case, because, statement related to one or other incidents, which are or have been subject matter of some other case, cannot be looked into in this case, so as to appreciate their merit, credibility etc. and to return a finding in this case. In the initial part of my findings itself, I have referred to the case laws and legal principles to explain that there cannot be double trial for same incident. The order passed by hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. M.C. No. 6128/2024, also makes it clear that judgment passed in the past cases as relied upon by the prosecution, assume importance to show if those cases were Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 85 of 86 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District, PRAMACHALA Date: 2024.10.15 Karkardooma Courts, 16:42:31 +0530Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-000924-2015 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi etc. SC No. 45052/2015 FIR No. 351/2013, PS Seelampur really of the nature of organised crime as alleged by the prosecution. In absence of proof of aforesaid factors, there cannot be a case for offence u/s 3 (2 to 5) of the Act. The Act does not refer to any property if acquired by the accused. It refers to proceeds of organized crime, which requires proof of organised crime first. However, all these aspects are missing in this case.
CONCLUSION & DECISION
42. In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I find that accused Mohd. Umar @ Pau, Kamaluddin @ Kamal @ Bilal and Mohd. Jamal @ Ranjha, are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them in this case. Digitally signed by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.10.15 16:42:38 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 15.10.2024 ASJ-03(North East) (This judgment contains 86 pages) Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Page 86 of 86 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi