Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok @ Assu Seth Tilak vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
1 CRR-5853-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5853 of 2025
ASHOK @ ASSU SETH TILAK
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Varun Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi appearing on behalf of Advocate
General[r-1].
Herd On: 03.02.2026
Delivered On: 30.04.2026
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2025 passed in ST No.336/2025 by 4th ASJ, Dewas whereby the charges under Section 317(2) and 111(4) of BNS, 2023 have been framed against the revision petitioner in a case arising out of the Crime No.1276/2025 registered at Police Station Industrial Area, District Dewas.
2. Facts in brief are that the complainant of this case namely Javed Hussain runs a fabrication shop at Sukhliya road Kshipra District Dewas. On 03.03.2025, an e-rickshaw vehicle used to collect the garbage belonging to village Panchayat was brought to the fabrication shop for repair and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 2 CRR-5853-2025 complainant tied the said e-rickshaw with chain in front of his fabrication shop and returned to his home at 11:00PM. In the next morning, the complainant found that the chain has been cut and the e-rickshaw is also not available at the place where he had tied the same. On search, it was found at some distance but batteries and one hydraulic valued Rs.30,000/- were not available in the said e-rickshaw. He informed the Sarpanch and Secretary of Village Panchayat, Kshipra, Dewas and lodged the FIR on 19.03.2025 at Police Station, Industrial Area, Dewas.
3. The FIR bearing Crime No.276/2025 was registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Dewas under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023 against unknown persons. After investigation, involvement of 06 persons namely Ashok, Mohd Parvez @ Ajju, Arbaj @ Sonu, Muzaffar @ Raja, and Ashok @ Assu Seth and Tilak S/o Chimanlal (Present Petitioner) were found and they were apprehended but Lakhan s/o Joravar And Gokul s/o Munnalal Choudhary could not be apprehended and final report under Section 303(2), 317 (2) and 111(4) of BNS, 2023 was submitted keeping the investigation pending in connection with Lakhan S/o Jorawar and Gokul S/o Munnalal Choudhary. Accordingly, the charges were framed as mentioned in para no.1 of above.
4. Challenging the framing of charges, this revision petitioner has been preferred on the ground that no offence is made out under Section 111(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Trial Court has committed a grave error in framing a charge against the petitioner under Section 111(4) of BNS, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 3 CRR-5853-2025 2023. For an offence under Section 111(4) of the BNS, 2023, it is essential that the accused be involved in continuing unlawful activity and that more than one charge sheet must have been filed against him before a competent court within the preceding ten years, and the court must have taken cognizance of such offences. Thus, the existence of multiple charge sheets and cognizance orders is a mandatory precondition for prosecuting a person under Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023. In the present case, a perusal of the entire charge sheet filed by the respondent police clearly reveals that there is absolutely no material to show that any cognizance order passed by any competent court in the past ten years involving the petitioner. It could not be shown to be a part of a crime syndicate or organized criminal gang.
5. It is further submitted that there is no allegation, no evidence, and no material whatsoever to indicate that the petitioner is a member of any gang, group, or crime syndicate engaged in organized unlawful activity. The prosecution has not shown any link, association, financial nexus, communication, or participation on the part of the petitioner with any such organized group. Except for the statement of a co-accused, which itself lacks corroboration, there is nothing in the entire case record to suggest that the petitioner is involved in any structured criminal activity. In the absence of any material establishing the petitioner's membership or involvement in a crime syndicate, the essential ingredient of Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023 stands unfulfilled. . It is a well-settled principle of criminal Jurisprudence that the statement or disclosure made by a co-accused, by itself, has no substantive evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for implicating Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 4 CRR-5853-2025 another person unless it is duly corroborated by independent, credible material.
6. It is also submitted that the batteries alleged to have been seized from the petitioner do not belong to the said e-rickshaw, and the charge sheet itself does not establish any such connection. It is further submitted that the prosecution claims to have seized three batteries from the garage of the petitioner; however, the charge sheet does not disclose any material to show that these batteries are the same as those installed in the said e-rickshaw. There is no identification report, no matching serial or chassis numbers, no statement of the complainant identifying the batteries, nor any technical report establishing that the seized batteries form part of the said vehicle. The mere recovery of generic batteries without any proof of ownership, identification, or linkage with the complainant's e-rickshaw cannot be treated as incriminating evidence against the petitioner. In the absence of such essential evidence, the alleged recovery becomes irrelevant and cannot be used to draw any inference of guilt. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish even a prima facie connection between the seized material and the stolen property, rendering the charge against the petitioner unsustainable.
7. In support of his contention, counsel for the revision petitioner has relied upon P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398.
8. Heard.
9. Counsel for the State as well as counsel for the objector has opposed Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 5 CRR-5853-2025 the prayer.
10. The involvement of the present petitioner in this case is on the strength of memorandum dated 09.06.2025 and consequent recovery of three Excide batteries valued Rs.30,000/- used in the e-rickshaw. The occasion to be taken the revision petitioner into custody is based on memorandum statements of Arbaj @ Sonu, Ashok S.o Ratanlal Choudhary and Bharat Rathore recorded in Crime No.316/2025 registered at Police Station Chimanganj Mandi, Ujjain as well as the memorandum of one Muzaffar @ Raja recorded on 19.05.2025 in connection with Crime No.276/2025 registered at Industrial Area, District Dewas.
11. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is appropriate to refer to the scope of exercise of power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C or presently section 250 of the BNSS, 2023. The Apex Court in P.Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and another - (2010) 2 SCC 398, made an in-depth consideration regarding the scope of power under section 227 Cr.P.C and held thus:
"10. Before considering the merits of the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:
"227. Discharge. -- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 6 CRR-5853-2025 after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."
If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts.
11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 7 CRR-5853-2025 accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him."
12. In Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation -(2010) 9 SCC 368,(2010) 9 SCC 368, the Apex Court has laid down certain guiding principles for discharge as under:
"21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 8 CRR-5853-2025
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 9 CRR-5853-2025 record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
13. The e-rickshaw from which the batteries were stolen belongs to the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh purchased by Janpad Panchayat Dewas under the Panchayat Rural Development Department of Madhya Pradesh through Secretary from GEM on 12.02.2022 from Aron International. Accordingly, the stolen property is very feeble and there is no justification of the revision petitioner regarding the possession of the batteries. Accordingly, the framing of Charges under Section 317(2) of BNS, 2023 suffers no infirmity, hence, challenge to framing of charges under Section 317(2)of BNS, 2023 have no substance and the finding of learned trial Court in this regard is affirmed.
14. Now, the question arises whether the charges under Section Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 10 CRR-5853-2025 111(4) of BNS, 2023 can be framed against the revision petitioner or not?
15. Section 111. Organised crime (1) Any continuing unlawful activity including kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offence, cyber-crimes trafficking of persons, drugs, weapons or illicit goods or services, human trafficking for prostitution or ransom, by any person or a group of persons acting in concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence, threat of violence, intimidation, coercion, or by any other unlawful means to obtain direct or indirect material benefit including a financial benefit, shall constitute organised crime.
Explanation. For the purposes of this subsection,-
(i) "organised crime syndicate" means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or jointly, as a syndicate or gang indulge in any continuing unlawful activity;
(ii) "continuing unlawful activity" means an activity prohibited by law which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken by any person, either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence, and includes economic offence:
(iii) "economic offence includes criminal breach of trust, forgery, counterfeiting of currency-notes, bank-
notes and Government stamps. hawala transaction, mass-marketing fraud or running any scheme to defraud several persons or doing any act in any manner with a view to defraud any bank or financial institution or any other institution or organisation for obtaining monetary benefits in any form.
(2) Whoever commits organised crime shall.-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 11 CRR-5853-2025
(a) if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees;
(b) in any other case, be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.
(3) Whoever abets, attempts, conspires or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organised crime, or otherwise engages in any act preparatory to an organised crime, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.
(4) Any person who is a member of an organised crime syndicate shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.
(5) Whoever, intentionally, harbours or conceals any person who has committed the offence of an organised crime shall be punished with imprisonment for 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 which shall not be less than five lakh rupees:
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to any case in which the harbour or concealment is by the spouse of the offender.
(6) Whoever possesses any property derived or obtained from the commission of an organised crime or proceeds of any organised crime or which has been acquired through the organised crime, shall be punishable with imprisonment for 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 which shall not be Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
12 CRR-5853-2025 less than two lakh rupees.
(7) If any person on behalf of a member of an organised crime syndicate is, or at any time has been in possession of movable or immovable property which he cannot satisfactorily account for, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees.
16. The primary intent behind introducing of Section 111 of BNS, 2023, is to provide a targeted and effective mechanism to dismantle organized crime syndicate. From a reading of the said provision of law, it is manifest that for the purpose of invoking Section 111 of BNS, 2023, there are certain basic parameters and if only it is found that the accused comes within the said parameters, the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023 can be invoked. The said parameters are as follows:
(a) the offences enlisted in the Section must have been committed;
(b) accused should be a member of an organized crime syndicate;
(c) he should have committed the crime as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate;
(d) he should have been chargesheeted more than once before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years for a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more and the Court before which chargesheet has been filed should have taken cognizance of such offence and includes economic offence;
(e) the crime must be committed by using violence, intimidation, threat, coercion or by any other unlawful means.
17. In Aamir Bashir Magray v. State (UT of J&K), 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 721, the Court opined that in order to bring an accused's actions under 'organised crime', it must be shown that they engaged in a continuing unlawful activity which might include economic offences, and that they were charge-sheeted more than once before a competent Court in the past ten Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 13 CRR-5853-2025 years, with the Court having taken cognizance for those offences.
18. In the case of Amrish Rana vs. State of H.P.;2026:HHC:3356 reported in 2026 Latest Case Law 346 HP, the legal position regarding the applicability of Section 111 of BNS, 2023 in para no.14 to 17 has been discussed as below:-
"14. This section was explained by the Karnataka High Court in Avinash vs. State of Karnataka (11.03.2025 - KARHC):
MANU/KA/0938/2025 as under:
1. The primary intent behind introducing Section 111 of BNS, 2023, is to provide a targeted and effective mechanism to dismantle organised crime syndicates From a reading of the said provision of law, it is manifest that for the purpose of invoking Section 111 of BNS, 2023, there are certain basic parameters, and if it is found that the accused comes within the said parameters, the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023 can be invoked. The said parameters are as follows:
(a) the offences enlisted in the Section must have been committed;
(b) accused should be a member of an organised crime syndicate;
(c) he should have committed the crime as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such a syndicate.
(d) he should have been chargesheeted more than once before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years for a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more, and the Court before which the chargesheet has been filed should have taken cognisance of such offence, including an economic offence.
(e) the crime must be committed by using violence, intimidation, threat, coercion or by any other unlawful means.
15. It was laid down by the Kerala High Court in Mohd. Hashim Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 14 CRR-5853-2025 v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 5260, where no charge sheet was filed against the accused in the preceding ten years, he cannot be held liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 111 of the BNS Act. It was observed:
"10. Section 111 (1) explicitly stipulates that to attract the offence, there should be a continuing unlawful activity, by any person or group of persons acting in concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. The material ingredient to attract the above provision, so far as the present case is concerned, is that there should have been a continuing unlawful activity committed by a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate.
11. Explanation (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 111 of BNS define an organised crime syndicate and a continuing unlawful activity, respectively.
12. Continuing unlawful activity under explanation (ii) of Section 111(1) of the BNS means an activity prohibited by law, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken by any person, either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheet has to be filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such an offence. Furthermore, an organised crime syndicate under Explanation (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 111 of the BNS means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or jointly as a syndicate or gang, indulge in any continuing unlawful activity.
13. While interpreting the analogous provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, which mandates the existence of at least two charge sheets in respect of a specified offence in the preceding ten years, the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane [(2015) 14 SCC 272] has unequivocally held as follows:Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
15 CRR-5853-2025 "9. It was in the above backdrop that the High Court held that once the respondents had been acquitted for the offence punishable under the IPC and Arms Act in Crimes No. 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 No. 1 and 2 of 2002 all that remained incriminating was the filing of charge sheets against the respondents in the past and taking of cognizance by the competent court over a period of ten years prior to the enforcement of the MCOCA. The filing of charge sheets or taking of the cognisance in the same did not, declared the High Court, by itself constitute an offence punishable under Section 3 of the MCOCA. That is because the involvement of respondents 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 sheet 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 before the enactment of MCOCA does not constitute an offence under MCOCA. Registration of cases, filing of charge sheets and taking of cognisance by the competent court in relation to the offence alleged to have been committed by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 16 CRR-5853-2025 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. Only if an organised crime is committed by the accused after the promulgation of MCOCA, he may, seen in the light of the previous charge sheets and the cognisance 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 Nos. 37 and 38 of 2001 signified that they were not involved in the commission of the offences with which they were charged. Not only were the respondents were acquitted of the charge under the Arms Act, but they were also acquitted in Crimes Case 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 the 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".
14. Subsequently, the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1727], while interpreting the analogous provisions of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, clarified the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 17 CRR-5853-2025 ratio in Shivaji alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (supra) by observing thus:
"52. It is a sound rule of construction that the substantive law should be construed strictly so as to give effect and protection to the substantive rights unless the statute otherwise intends. Strict construction is one that limits the application of the statute by the words used. According to Sutherland, 'strict construction refuses to extend the import of words used in a statute so as to embrace cases or acts which the words do not clearly describe'.
53. The rule as stated by Mahajan C.J. in Tolaram Relumal v. State of Bombay, (1954) 1 SCC 961: AIR 1954 SC 496, is that "if two possible and reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the court must lean towards that construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes a penalty. It is not competent to the court to stretch the meaning of an expression used by the legislature in order to carry out the intention of the legislature." In State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements, (2005) 1 SCC 368, this Court held that it is a settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed.
The basic rule of strict construction of a penal statute is that a person cannot be penalised without a clear reading of the law. Presumptions or assumptions have no role in the interpretation of penal statutes.
They are to be construed strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. Nothing can be implied. In such cases, the courts are not so much concerned with what might possibly have been intended. Instead, they are concerned with what has actually been said.
54. We are of the view and the same would be in tune with the dictum as laid in Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (supra) that there would have to be some act or omission which amounts to organised crime after the 2015 Act came into force i.e., 01.12.2019 in respect of which, the 2026:HHC:3356 accused is sought to be tried for the first time in the special court.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 18 CRR-5853-2025
55. We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of Jaisingh (supra) that neither the definition of the term 'organised crime' nor of the term 'continuing unlawful activity' nor any other provision therein declares any activity performed prior to the enactment of the MCOCA to be an offence under the 1999 Act nor the provision relating to punishment relates to any offence prior to the date of enforcement of the 1999 Act, i.e., 24.02.1999. However, by referring to the expression 'preceding period of ten years' in Section 2(1) (d), which is a definition clause of the term 'continuing unlawful activity' inference is sought to be drawn that in fact, it takes into its ambit the acts done prior to the enforcement of the 1999 Act as being an offence under the 1999 Act. The same analogy will apply to the 2015 Act.
56. There is a vast difference between the act or activity, which is being termed or called an offence under a statute and such act or activity being taken into consideration as one of the requisites for taking action under the statute. For the purpose of organised crime, there has to be a continuing unlawful activity. There cannot be continuing unlawful activity unless at least two charge sheets are found to have been lodged in relation to the offence punishable with three years' imprisonment during the period of ten years. Indisputably, the period of ten years may relate to the period prior to 01.12.2019 or thereafter. In other words, it provides that the activities, which were offences under the law in force at the relevant time and in respect of which two charge sheets have been filed and the Court has taken cognisance thereof, during the period of the preceding ten years, then it will be considered as continuing unlawful activity on 01.12.2019 or thereafter. It nowhere by itself declares any activity to be an offence under the said 2015 Act prior to 01.12.2019. It also does not convert any activity done prior to 01.12.2019 to be an offence under the said 2015 Act. It merely considers two charge sheets in relation to the acts which were already declared as offences under the law in force to be one of the requisites for the purpose of identifying continuing unlawful activity Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 19 CRR-5853-2025 and/or for the purpose of an action under the said 2015 Act.
57. If the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (supra) is looked into closely along with other provisions of the Act, the same would indicate that the offence of 'organised crime' could be said to have been constituted by at least one instance of continuation, apart from continuing unlawful activity evidenced by more than one chargesheets in the preceding ten years. We say so, keeping in mind the following:
(a) If 'organised crime' was synonymous with 'continuing unlawful activity', two separate definitions were not necessary.
(b) The definitions themselves indicate that the ingredients of the use of violence in such activity with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefit are not included in the definition of 'continuing unlawful activity', but find place only in the definition of 'organised crime'.
(c) What is made punishable under Section 3 is 'organised crime' and not 'continuing unlawful activity'.
(d) If 'organised crime' were to refer to only more than one chargesheets filed, the classification of crime in Section 3(1)(i) and 3(1) (ii) resply on the basis of consequence of resulting in death or otherwise would have been phrased differently, namely, by providing that 'if any one of such offence has resulted in the death', since continuing unlawful activity requires more than one offence. Reference to 'such offence' in Section 3(1) implies a specific act or omission.
(e) As held by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 20 CRR-5853-2025 (supra) continuing unlawful activity evidenced by more than one chargesheets is one of the ingredients of the offence of organised crime and the purpose thereof is to see the antecedents and not to convict, without proof of other facts which constitute the ingredients of Section 2(1)(e) and Section 3, which respectively define commission of offence of organised crime and prescribe punishment.
(f) There would have to be some act or omission which amounts to organised crime after the Act came into force, in respect of which the accused is sought to be tried for the first time, in the Special Court (i.e. has not been or is not being tried elsewhere).
(g) However, we need to clarify something important. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (supra) dealt with the situation where a person commits no unlawful activity after the invocation of the MCOCA. In such circumstances, the person cannot be arrested under the said Act on account of the offences committed by him before the coming into force of the said Act, even if he is found guilty of the same. However, if the person continues with the unlawful activities and is arrested, after the promulgation of the said Act, then such a person can be tried for the offence under the said Act. If a person ceases to indulge in any unlawful act after the said Act, then he is absolved of the prosecution under the said Act. But, if he continues with the unlawful activity, it cannot be said that the State has to wait till he commits two acts of which cognizance is taken by the Court after coming into force. The same principle would apply, even in the case of the 2015 Act, with which we are concerned.
58. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the dictum as laid by this Court in Shiva alias Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 21 CRR-5853-2025 Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane(supra) does not require any relook. The dictum in Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (supra) is the correct exposition of law"
16. Section 111 (1) of the BNS in respect of organised crime is, in essence, analogous to the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Control Act and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act. The legal principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in its interpretation of organised crime as defined by the above two state legislations are applicable on all fours to Section 111 (1) of the BNS. Thus, it is not necessary to have a further interpretation of the above analogous provision.
17. In view of the above discussion, to attract an offence under Section 111 (1) of the BNS it is imperative that a group of two or more persons indulge in any continuing unlawful activity prohibited by law, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken by any person, either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheet has to be filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such an offence."
19. Now, come to the facts of this case, in the final report submitted under Section 193 of BNS, 2023, the reasons for invoking Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023 have not been disclosed. Only factum has been mentioned that in the offence registered under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023, the offence under Section 317(2) and 111(4) of BNS, 2023 have been enhanced. Letter dated 08.05.2025 referred to In-charge, Police Station, Chimanganj Mandi, Ujjain is to the effect that Crime Nos.276/2025, 297/2025 and 358/2025 under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023 requires the document of Crime No.316/2025 registered under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station- Chimanganj Mandi, Ujjain.
20. In addition, vide letter dated 12.12.2025, the reasons for invocation Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 22 CRR-5853-2025 of Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023 has been explained as below:-
करण के आरोपीगणो ारा थाना िचमनगंज म ड उ जैन म दे वास म घटना करना वीकार कया जसक सूचना िमलने पर दनांक 08.05.25 को क य जेल उ जैन से आरोपीय के जला जेल म दा खल होने क जानकार ा कर ीमान के यायालय से आरोपीगणो का ोड शन वारं ट जार कराया गया आरोपीगण दनांक 16.5.2025 को ोड शन वारं ट के पालन म आरोपीगण 1 अशोक पता रतन लाल चोहान उ 29 साल िनवासी पप य नोलाया थाना मोहन बडो दया जला शाजापुर हाल संजय नगर धरमपुर ई दौर 2-भारत पता िशवलाल राठौर उ 35 साल िनवासी इं गो रया थाना गरोठ जला मंदसौर , 3-परवेज उफ अ जु पता हबीब नूर उ 34 साल िनवासी नसीब होटल वाली गली बेगम बाग उ जैन 4- सोनू उफ अरबाज पता नासीर खॉन उ 32 साल िनवासी गुलमोहर कॉलोनी उ जैन, 5- राजा उफ मुज फर पता मोह मद खालीक उ 20 साल िनवासी स ाट कालोनी उ जैन को ीमान के यायालय हा जर कया गया जस पर आरोपीगणो क थाना औ. े के अपराध सदर मे अव यकता होने से आरोपीगणो क फामल िगर तार क अनुमित ा क जाकर फामल िगर तार क गई बाद धाने के उिन वजय िसंह बेस साहब याया उप थत हु ये जनके ारा आरोपीगणो का दनांक 20.05.2025 तक का पीआर ा कर आरोपीगणो का धारा 23 (ग) सा य वधान के मेमोरे डम लेख कया गया। जसमे उ होने संगठ त होकर एक िगरोह के प म आसपास के े दे वास, उ जैन , शाजापुर म एक ह तरह क चोर करने क घटनाओं को अंजाम दया जाना बताया एवं चोर कया म क ु ा को अपने साथीयो को बेचकर धन अ जत करना बताया। करण म मेमो के आधार पर धारा 111(4),317(2) बी.एन.एस को इजाफा कया गया। रकण म आरोपी अशोक ओर परवेज क िनशादे ह से परवेज के गोडाउन से करण म चोर क 01 बेटर भी ज क गई है ।
आरोप अशोक ने उसके मेम म बताया क वह चोर क बेटर य के सी रयल न बर िनकाल दे ते थे आरोपीगण को दनांक 20.5 2025 को माननीय यायालय पेश कया गया जहां से आरोपीगणो का दनांक 02.06.2025 तक का का ले.आर. वीकृ त होने से के य जेल भे गण उ जैन दा खल कया गया। आरोपीगण वतमान म के य जेल म िन है यह क करण म मेमो के आधार पर आरोपी अशोक ितलक उफ अ सु सेठ पता िचमनलाल उ 54 साल िनवासी 24 िनजातपुरा, राय धरमशाला के पास थाना कोतवाली उ जैन को दनांक 08.6.2025 को िगरफतार माननीय यायालय से दनांक 11.6.2025 तक का पीआर ा कया गया एवं करण म शेष बची 03 बेटर यां आरोपी के गोडाउन से ज क गई। आरोपी वतमान म जला जेल म िन है यह क करण म फरार 02 आरोपीय क तलाश जार है । करण वतमान म संपूण ववेचना क जाकर करण म चालान 553/25 दनांक 12.08.25 का कता कया जाकर माननीय यायालय म फौमुनं 1756/25 दनांक 13.08.25 पर दज होकर माननीय यायालय म वचाराधीन है ।
नामः अशोक ितलक उफ अ सु सेठ पता िचमनलाल उ 54 साल िनवासी 24 िनजातपुरा, राय धरमशाला के पास थाना कोतवाली उ जैन का आपराधीक रकाड . अपराध धारा ववरण थाना चालान मांक फौ.मु.नं.
मांक
1. 317/25 238,303(2),317(5) थाना िचमनगंज यायालय म वचराधीन मंड जला उ जैन है
2. 358/25 111(4), 303(2), 317(2) औ ै दे वास 552/12.08.25 1752/13.08.25 बीएनएस यायालय म वचाराधीन है
3. 276/25 111(4), 303(2), 317(2) औ ै दे वास 553/12.08.25 1756/13.08.25 बीएनएस यायालय म वचाराधीन है
4. 79/25 303(2), 317(2) जीवाजीगंज जला यायालय म वचाराधीन बीएनएस उ जैन है
5. 297/25 111(4), 303(2), 317(2) औ ै दे वास 554/12.08.25 1757/13.08.25 बीएनएस यायालय म वचाराधन है Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 23 CRR-5853-2025
21. The reasons mentioned by prosecution referred in para nos.19 and 20 of this order for invoking Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023 does not satisfy the standard of Sub-para no.17 of Para no.18 of this order. Accordingly, the learned trial Court has committed error in framing charges against the revision petitioner under section 111(4) of BNS, 2023 because what is stated is criminal record against the revision petitioner are of the same date and those cannot be termed as previous cases in respect of which cognizance has been taken. Accordingly, the learned trial Court has committed error in framing charges against the revision petitioner under Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023. If the prosecution collects the material sufficient to justify invocation of Section 111 of BNS, 2023 against the revision petitioner then the same may be submitted before the Court through further investigation and filing supplementary final report and may prayed for additional charge. At present, the charges under Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023 against the revision petitioner is not sustainable.
22. The learned trial Court may consider the applicability of charges under Section 112 of BNS, 2023 that provide for petty organized crime and the pre-conditions like section 111 of BNS, 2023 does not apply.
23. In view of the aforesaid, this revision petition is partly allowed to the extent that charges under Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023 framed against the present revision petitioner are set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to consider the applicability of charges under Section 112 of BNS, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392 24 CRR-5853-2025 2023 after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties and may pass a reasoned order on its own merits of the record without being influenced with the finding of this Court.
24. Accordingly, the revision petition stands partly allowed and disposed off.
25. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court concerned for information and necessary action.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE amit Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 30-04-2026 19:05:05