Delhi District Court
45 vs D. Pandy Is Witness Regarding Arrest Of on 30 July, 2012
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03 - SPECIAL JUDGE -
MCOCA : OUTER DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. : 54/2007
PS : Mangolpuri
U/s : 3 (2)/ 3(4) MCOC Act
Unique Case ID : 02404R0 675542007
In the matter of
The State
Versus
1. Rajesh @ Dil Dil S/o Shish Pal
R/o N-865, Mangolpuri
Delhi.
2. Sandeep @ Kalia S/o Sh. Jmail Singh
R/o B-331, Mangolpuri
Delhi.
3. Ajay @ Vikram @ Gainda S/o Sh. Shish Pal
R/o S-582, Mangolpuri
Delhi.
4. Vinay S/o Sh. Sudesh
R/o R-575, Mangolpuri
Delhi.
5. Risalat Hussain S/o Sh. Liyakat Hussain
R/o P-3/301, Sultanpuri
Delhi.
6. Som Wati w/o Sh. Lal Singh
R/o N-865, Mangolpuri
Delhi.
7. Lal Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh
R/o N-865, Mangolpuri
Delhi.
8. Sumitra w/o Sh. Sheesh Pal
R/o S-582, Mangolpuri
Delhi.
FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 1 of 55
-2-
9. Sunil S/o Sh. Munshi Ram
R/o N-363, Mangolpuri
Delhi.
10. Bharat @ Papat S/o Sh. Munshi Ram
R/o N-720, Mangolpuri
Delhi.
...ACCUSED
Session Case No. : 543/11
Date of Institution : 01.08.2007
Date of reserving judgment/order : 30.07.2012
Date of pronouncement : 30.07.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. Accused persons namely Rajesh @ Dil Dil, Sandeep @ Kalia, Ajay @ Vikram @ Ganda, Vinay, Risalat Hussain, Somwati, Lal Singh, Sumitra, Sunil and Bharat @ Popat were sent up by police of PS Mangolpuri to stand trial for offence punishable U/s 3 (2), 3 (4) and 3 (5) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (as extended to NCT of Delhi) [hereinafter referred to as MCOC Act].
2. The facts of the prosecution case are on 25.01.2007, SHO/Mangolpuri presented a rukka to duty officer for registration of said case stating therein that brief facts of Case FIR No.955 dated 10.12.2006 u/s 399/402/186/353/307/34 IPC & 25/27-54-59 Arms Act PS Mangolpuri, Delhi are that there was an information on 10th December, 2006 that a group of desperate dacoits-cum-snatchers have gathered at a place and are about to commit dacoity at a wine shop in the jurisdiction of PS Mangolpuri, Delhi. Immediately a dedicated team was formed. The team rushed to the destined place and found the FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 2 of 55 -3- gang making preparations to commit dacoity and when challenged, the dacoits fired at police party which went astray. Finally they were overpowered while two of them namely Sandeep Kalia and Vinay managed to escape under the cover of darkness. Two country made pistols, one knife, few cartridges and two new motorcycles were recovered which were being used in commission of crimes. The accused persons namely Ajay @ Vikaram @ Gainda, Rajesh @ Dil Dil and Lal Singh were arrested on the spot. On the basis of the same FIR No. 955/06 u/s 399/402/186/353/307/34 IPC was registered. The fourth escaped accused Vinay was also arrested on 17.12.2006 and a motorcycle make Pulsar was recovered from him. It is found that all the above mentioned criminals were found to be listed desperate snatchers of Delhi and these criminals had created a havoc by committing a series of snatching. They were found to be enjoying a lavish life style with booty received in lieu of snatched chains at a posh colony of Ghaziabad. During the course of interrogation of Ajay @ Vikram @ Gainda, Rajesh @ Dil Dil, Lal Singh and Vinay, some startling facts came to notice about their criminal activities. The facts disclosing their crime to be of organized nature were that these four snatchers have a dedicated team of associates who participate in commission of crime or are receivers of stolen property which is headed by Rajesh @ Dil Dil. They have been arrested in a number of cases with the same set of accomplices in case of snatching and other crime. Rajesh @ Dil Dil has been involved in more than 40 criminal cases besides preventive action taken against him on various occasions. They have a FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 3 of 55 -4- wide spread network which includes financers of vehicles being used for crime and receivers of stolen properties. They have earned a lot of money from their criminal activities. They have purchased four wheelers and costly motorcycles from the money derived from crime. Their associates are well known criminals like Sandeep @ Kalia, Kishan, Sunny and Anil etc. All the above noted criminals are either history sheeters or having long list of involvements. Rajesh @ Dil Dil alongwith his associates are involved in many criminal cases including attempt to murder, snatching, Arms Act, NDPS Act and preparation to commit dacoity. On verification of Rajesh @ Dil Dil antecedents/credentials and criminal involvements, he has turned out to be a BC (bad character) of bundle 'A' of PS Mangolpuri of North-West Dist. Delhi. Moreover, he has been convicted four times in snatching cases in last five years. The criminal activities of Rajesh @ Dil Dil revealed and the scrutiny of his involvements showed that it is covered under the definition of organized syndicate as defined in MCOC Act as extended to NCT of Delhi. The provisions of section 3 of MCOC Act is attracted and as such it was felt that it would be in fitness of things to take necessary action against Rajesh @ Dil Dil and his organized syndicate under the said Act. Accordingly, the above facts in the form of proposal was sent to the competent authority i.e. Joint Commissioner of Police/Northern Range for necessary approval. The approval was accorded. The investigation of the case was taken up by Sh. Satya Prakash ACP/DIU/NW. ACP sent a letter for registration of FIR under MCOC Act. Hence a case u/s 3(2), 3(4) of MCOC FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 4 of 55 -5- Act was registered and copy of FIR alongwith the original approval order issued by Jt. CP/NR office were sent to Sh. Satya Prakash ACP/DIU/NW for taking up investigation. During investigations on 13.02.2007 accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil, Lal Singh, Ajay @ Vikram @ Gainda, Vinay and Sandeep mentioned in column no.3 were arrested. On 16.02.2007, accused Risalat Hussain and on 19.02.2007 accused Som Wati both mentioned in column no.3 were arrested. The investigation of this case was entrusted to Sh. Joginder Pal ACP/OPS/NW Distt. Delhi on transfer of earlier IO. During investigation on 5.3.2007 IO arrested Sumitra. On 19.03.2007, accused Sunil and on 14.05.2007 accused Bharat @ Popat were arrested. During investigation police remand of accused Risalat Hussain was obtained and during his remand, accused Risalat Hussain made confession u/s 18 of the MCOC Act, 1999.
3. Rishalat Hussain stated in his confessional statement recorded u/s 18 of MCOC Act that he knows accused Somvati and Vinay and they had requested him to get the vehicle financed during last year and he does not know whether they are involved in crime. He further stated that first of all accused Somvati and Vinay asked him to get Santro Car financed and said that they do not have documents for getting the same financed and therefore, he got financed the vehicle in his name from Hans Hundai and paid down payment of Rs.78,000/- which was given by accused Somvati and Vinay to him. Later on, he paid installment from his bank account of Bank of Rajasthan and accused Somvati and Vinay used to give him money so that he FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 5 of 55 -6- can pay installment and said car is with Vinay. They had also got financed one motorcycle Bajaj Pulsar and one ALTO Car and he paid down payment of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively which was given by accused Somvati. He had paid installments from his account by taking money from them. He got financed the motorcycle make Bajaj from Bagga Link and the ALTO Car from DD Motors Mangolpuri. He has come to know that accused Somvati and Vinay does not have any work and have involved in crime. He also confessed that he has got husband of accused Somvati released on bail in which he had given FD of Rs.15,000/- and the money was given by accused Somvati.
4. During investigation, it has been found that the accused Somwati was arrested with her same associate Risalat Hussain in the same 'Alto' car registration no. DL-9CP-6763 which was got financed by her in his name in case FIR No. 251/2006 dated 12.12.2006 u/s 20/25/59 of NDPS Act, PS Kanjhawala, Delhi while carrying ganja. The Santro Xing Xo car registration no. DL-4CS-4862 got financed by Somwati through Risalat Hussain was seized by PS Mangolpuri in case FIR No. 1007/08, dated 22.12.2006 u/s 61/1/14 Excise Act in which two accused of this case named Sunil and Bharat who are the members of this 'Organized Crime Syndicate' were found carrying illicit liquor.
5. The motorcycle make Bajaj Pulsar registration no.
DL-8SAK-0684 got financed by her through Risalat Hussain was seized by PS Mangolpuri in case FIR No. 955/06 dated FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 6 of 55 -7- 10.12.2006 u/s 399/402/186/353/307/34 IPC and 25-27/54/59 Arms Act, PS Mangolpuri, Delhi in which five accused of this case namely Rajesh @ Dil Dil, Ajay @ Ganda, Lal Singh, Sandeep @ Kalia and Vinay who are the members of this 'Organized Crime Syndicate' were arrested while making preparation to commit dacoity. In this case they attacked and attempted to kill the police party also. Besides, this, one more motorcycle registration no. DL-4SBB-5608 was also recovered from them in this case. After this when the accused Vinay who had fled from the spot was arrested in this case one another motorcycle no. DL-4SBD-3239 was recovered from him. During investigation both these motorcycles have been found to be owned by Sumitra one of the members of their 'Organized Crime Syndicate' who has also been arrested in this case.
6. During investigation, it has further come to notice that no report of the loss or theft etc. of the above noted vehicles was lodged by none of the accused prior to their recovery in aforesaid criminal activities which proves that these were being used by the members of this 'Organized Crime Syndicate' with the consent of their owners who are also the members of this 'Organized Crime Syndicate' and have been arrested in this case. During investigation, it has been found that in case FIR No. 135/06, PS Prashant Vihar, Delhi the accused Risalat Hussain, the accused of this case has stood surety of Rs.15,000/- for another accused of this case named Lal Singh on 28.10.2006 in the court.
7. All the above noted evidence very clearly shows that all of FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 7 of 55 -8- them are the members of the same 'Organized Crime Syndicate' and are working for their 'Organized Crime Syndicate'. During investigation it has come on record that none of the accused has ever declared his income or sources of income in Income Tax Deptt. On verification from Income Tax Deptt., it has come to notice neither any of them has ever obtained any PAN card nor has ever declared his income in Income Tax Department in the form of 'Income Tax Return'.
8. The evidence pertaining to vehicles owned by them has come on record. During the investigation they have failed to disclose the sources from where they have made payment to purchase these vehicles. They have no other apparent source of income except crime. During investigation they have not disclosed as to in which capacity they are living in the residential houses whose addresses have been given by them at the time of their arrests. No document has so far been procured from any department pertaining to ownership of these properties. It is stated that during investigation accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil was found running an 'Organized Crime Syndicate' for pecuniary gains and he is shown to have been chargesheeted in six cases filed in the Court from 11.11.2002 to 10.12.2006 after the commencement of the MCOC Act in which Court has taken cognizance against him.
9. It is also stated that during the investigation, accused Lal Singh has been found to be an active member of the 'Organized Crime Syndicate' for pecuniary gains and there are seven cases filed by police after the commencement of the MCOC Act in which FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 8 of 55 -9- Court has taken cognizance against him.
10. It is also found mentioned that during investigation, accused Vinay has been found to be running an 'Organized Crime Syndicate' for pecuniary gains and there are four cases filed against him by police after the commencement of the MCOC Act, in which Court has taken cognizance against him.
11. It is also stated that during the investigation, accused Bharat @ Popat has been found to be an active member of the 'Organized Crime Syndicate' for pecuniary gains and he is shown to have been chargesheeted in five cases filed in the Court after the commencement of the MCOC Act in which Court has taken cognizance against him.
12. It is also stated that during investigation, accused Sandeep @ Kalia has been found to be running an 'Organized Crime Syndicate' for pecuniary gains and there are five cases filed against him by police after the commencement of the MCOC Act, in which Court has taken cognizance against him.
13. It is also stated that during the investigation, accused Ajay @ Gainda has been found to be an active member of the 'Organized Crime Syndicate' for pecuniary gains and there are four cases filed by police after the commencement of the MCOC Act in which Court has taken cognizance against him.
14. It is also stated that during investigation, accused Somwati and Sumitra have been found to be active member of this 'Organized Crime Syndicate' for pecuniary gains and they have FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 9 of 55 -10- been found to be arranging and providing vehicles to the members of the Syndicate to carry out their illegal activities and there are two cases against accused Somwati, and three cases against accused Sumitra in which court have taken cognizance after commencement of MCOC Act.
15. It is also mentioned that accused Sunil has been found to be an active member of the 'Organized Crime Syndicate' for pecuniary gains and he is shown to be involved in as many as three cases after the commencement of the MCOC Act but it is not mentioned as to in how many cases cognizance has been taken against him by the Court.
16. Against accused Risalat @ Pappu s/o Liyakat Hussain, it is stated that he has been found to be an active member of the 'Organized Crime Syndicate' for pecuniary gains and has been found to be arranging and providing vehicles to the members of the syndicate to carry out their illegal activities and was shown to be involved in one case under Arms Act.
17. After the completion of the investigation, accused persons were charge sheeted u/s 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOC Act.
18. My Ld. Predecessor, after finding prima-facie case, vide order dated 8.5.2008 charged accused persons namely Risalat Hussain, Sunil, Sumitra, Somwati and Bharat @ Popat for offence punishable u/s 3(2) of MCOC Act, and accused persons namely Rajesh @ Dil Dil, Lal Singh, Vinay, Ajay @ Vikram @ Gainda and Sandeep @ Kalia for offence punishable u/s 3(4) of MCOC Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 10 of 55 -11-19. The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as sixty two (62) witnesses :-
20. The prosecution examined following material witnesses :-
i. PW-11 ACP Om Prakash, the then SHO proved rukka Ex.PW-11/A regarding registration of present case under MCOC Act.
ii. PW-56 Sh. Alok Kumar, the then DCP, Centre District is the witness who recorded confessional statement of accused Rishalat Hussain u/s 18 of MCOC Act and proved proceedings as Ex.PW-56/A, statement of accused Rishalat Hussain as Ex.PW-56/B, his certificate Ex.PW-56/C and his request addressed to Ld. CMM as Ex.PW-56/D. iii. PW-57 Sh. Kamaljeet Arora, the the ACMM before whom the accused Rishalat Hussain was produced after his confessional statement u/s 18 of MCOC Act. He proved statement of accused as Ex.PW-57/A and his direction as Ex.PW-57/B. iv. PW-58 ASI Sultan Singh is witness regarding case prior to commencement of MCOC Act. Therefore is not relevant for the purpose of present case.
v. PW-62 Sh. B. R. Meena, the then Joint Commissioner of Police, Northern Range, Delhi who granted approval to apply Section 3(2), 3 (4) of MCOC Act and to investigate and accorded FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 11 of 55 -12- approval u/s 23 (1) (a) of MCOC Act and proved the same as Ex.PW-13/A and he also proved sanction u/s 23 (2) of MCOC Act for the prosecution as Ex.PW-13/B.
21. The prosecution also examined following formal witnesses : -
i. PW-1 Sh. Bhupender Kumar, Assistant Ahlmad, who proved order of taking cognizance against accused Lal Singh in case FIR No. 805/02 as Ex.PW-1/B-1, against accused Ajay and one Suresh Kumar in case FIR No. 739/06 as Ex.PW-1/B-2, against accused Bharat and Rakesh in case FIR No. 259/06 as Ex.PW-1/B-3, against accused in case FIR No. 206/04 as Ex.PW-1/B-4 and against one Sarvesh, accused Ajay and one Peni Kumar in case FIR No. 623/06 as Ex.PW-1/B-5. He also proved order on charge against accused Lal Singh and Rajesh @ Dil Dil in case FIR No. 804/2002 PS Mangolpuri as Ex.PW-1/A-1, against accused Ajay @ Gainda, accused Vinay and one Sarvesh in case FIR No. 739/2006 PS Mangolpuri as Ex.PW-1/A-2, against accused Bharat and one Rakesh in case FIR No.259/2006 as Ex.PW-1/A-3, against accused Somwati in case FIR No. 206/04 as Ex.PW-1/A-4 and against accused Ajay @ Gainda in case FIR No. 623/06 as Ex.PW-1/A-5.
ii. PW-2 Sh. Sohan Prakash, Ahlmad proved order of FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 12 of 55 -13- taking cognizance as Ex.PW-2/A-1 against accused Sandeep and accused Vikram in case FIR No. 13/06, PS Rohini and Ex.PW-2/A-2 against accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil in case FIR No.86/06.
iii. PW-3 Sh. Ashok Kumar, Clerk, R.T.O, proved the record Ex.PW-3/A regarding car make Santro Xing XO Model bearing registration No.: DL-4C-S-4862 registered in the name of Risalat Hussain and record Ex.PW-3/B regarding motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-4S-SD-3239 registered in the name of Sumitra.
iv. PW-4 Sh. Kartik Nayak, Ahlmad, proved order of taking cognizance as Ex.PW-4/A against accused Sandeep @ Kalia and one Tanaji in case FIR No. 314/05, Ex.PW-4/B against accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil and accused Vinay in case FIR No.1018/06. He also proved order on charge Ex.PW-4/B1 against accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil in case FIR No. 1018 (Vinay discharged) and copy of FIR No.1018 as Ex.PW-4/B2.
v. PW-5 Sh. Babu Lal, LDC, Transport Authority proved report and copy of record as Ex.PW-5/A and Ex.PW-5/B regarding vehicle DL-9CP-6763 registered in the name of Risalat Hussain. As per record, the vehicle is hypothecated to ICICI Bank.
vi. PW-6 Sh. Naresh Chand, LDC Transport Authority, FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 13 of 55 -14- proved report and copy of record as Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-6/B regarding vehicle DL-4S-BB-5608 registered in the name of Sumitra.
vii. PW-7 Sh. Ashok Kumar, LDC Transport Authority, proved report and copy of record as Ex.PW-7/A and Ex.PW-7/B regarding vehicle DL-8S-AK-0684 registered in the name of Risalat Hussain. As per record the vehicle is hypothecated to ICICI Bank.
viii. PW-8 Ms. Vandana Sharma, Assistant Ahlmad, who proved copy of order of taking cognizance as Ex.PW-8/A in case FIR No. 132/06, PS Shalimar Bagh against accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil and accused Lal Singh, copy of order on charge as Ex.PW-8/B, copy of charge as Ex.PW-8/C and the copy of FIR as Ex.PW-8/D. She also proved order of taking cognizance as Ex.PW-8/E in case FIR No. 442/2000, PS Shalimar Bagh against accused Lal Singh and one Raj Kumar, copy of order on charge as Ex.PW-8/F, copy of charge is Ex.PW-8/G and the copy of FIR as Ex.PW-8/H. ix. PW-9 HC Satyabham proved copy of FIR 2006/2004, PS Mangolpuri as Ex.PW-9/A and copy of arrest memo of accused Somwati as Ex.PW-16/D. x. PW-10 SI Ram Kanwar is witness regarding arrest of accused Sumitra in case FIR No. 820/06, PS Mangolpuri u/s NDPS Act and proved copy of FIR FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 14 of 55 -15- as Ex.PW-10/A. xi. PW-12 Inspect Ajay Kumar Jha, Income Tax Department proved reply of income tax department u/s 91 Cr.PC as Ex.PW-12/A regarding accused Bharat @ Popat not assessed to income tax nor any PAN card alloted and Ex.PW-12/B reply to notice that none of the persons referred in letter are income tax assesses i.e. accused no.1 to 9.
xii. PW-13 SI Sanjeev Kumar from office of Joint CP, Northen Range proved order dated 15.01.2007 Ex.PW-13/A and on order u/s 23 (2) of MCOC Act as Ex.PW-13/B accorded by Sh. P. R. Meena, the then Jt. Commissioner of Police.
xiii. PW-14 Sh. Shalender Kumar, Ahlmad proved copy of judgment as Ex.PW-14/A in case FIR No. 1309/02, PS Sultanpuri wherein accused Lal Singh was convicted and accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil was PO, also proved copy of the order on point of sentence as Ex.PW-14/B, photocopy of chargesheet u/s 173 Cr.PC as Ex.PW-14/C and photocopy of personal search memo of accused Lal Singh as Ex.PW-14/D and photocopy of rukka as Ex.PW-14/E. xiv. PW-15 Sh. Sunil Chaurasiya, Ahlmad proved order of taking cognizance against accused Bharat and one Deepak in case FIR no.477/05, PS Saraswati Vihar FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 15 of 55 -16- as Ex.PW-15/A, photocopy of charge sheet as Ex.PW-15/B, Rukka Ex.PW-15/C, arrest memo of accused Bharat as Ex.PW-15/D, arrest memo of Deepak as Ex.PW-15/E, disclosure statement of accused Bharat as Ex.PW-15/F and Ex.PW-15/G. xv. PW-16 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Varun, Ahlmad proved order of taking cognizance Ex.PW-16/A against accused Somwati in case FIR No.206/04, PS Mangolpuri under Excise Act, photocopy of charge as Ex.PW-16/B, photocopy of rukka as Ex.PW-16/C, arrest memo of accused Somwati as Ex.PW-16/D. He also proved order of taking cognizance Ex.PW-16/E against accused Lal Singh and Rajesh @ Dil Dil in case FIR No.804/02, PS Mangolpuri, photocopy of charge as Ex.PW-16/F, photocopy of rukka as Ex.PW-16/G, photocopy of disclosure statement of accused Lal Singh as Ex.PW-16/H and arrest memo of accused Lal Singh as Ex.PW-16/J. He also proved order of taking cognizance Ex.PW-16/K against accused Bharat in case FIR No.44/2004, PS Mangolpuri, photocopy of charge as Ex.PW-16/L, photocopy of rukka as Ex.PW-16/M, and arrest memo of accused as Ex.PW-16/N. He also proved order of taking cognizance Ex.PW-16/O against accused Vikram @ Vikky and accused Sandeep @ Kalia in case FIR No.13/2006, PS Rohini, photocopy of charge framed against accused FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 16 of 55 -17- Sandeep @ Kalia as Ex.PW-16/P, photocopy of rukka as Ex.PW-16/Q, photocopy of disclosure statement of accused Vikram @ Vikky as Ex.PW-16/R, and photocopy of arrest memo of accused Sandeep @ Kalia as Ex.PW-16/S, recovery memo of chain from accused Vikram as Ex.PW-16/T, disclosure statement of accused Sandeep @ Kalia and accused Vikram as Ex.PW-16/U and Ex.PW-16/V respectively and seizure memo of Bajaj Scooter as Ex.PW-16/W. He also proved order of taking cognizance Ex.PW-16/X against accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil in case FIR No. 88/2006, PS Rohini, photocopy of rukka as Ex.PW-16/Y, and photocopy of arrest memo of accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil as Ex.PW-16/Z. He also proved order of taking cognizance Ex.PW-16/A1 against accused Bharat in case FIR No.259/2006, PS Mangolpuri, photocopy of charge as Ex.PW-16/A2, photocopy of rukka as Ex.PW-16/A3, and photocopy of arrest memo of accused Bharat as Ex.PW-16/A4. He also proved order of taking cognizance Ex.PW-16/A5 against accused Ajay @ Gainda, accused Vinay and one Sarvesh in case FIR No.739/2006, PS Mangolpuri, photocopy of charge as Ex.PW-16/A6 and photocopy of rukka as Ex.PW-16/A7, and photocopy of arrest memo of accused Ajay @ Gainda as Ex.PW-16/A8. He also proved order of taking cognizance Ex.PW-16/X-1 FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 17 of 55 -18- against accused Ajay @ Gainda, accused Vinay and one Sarvesh Kumar in case FIR No.623/2006, PS Mangolpuri, photocopy of arrest memo of accused Ajay @ Gainda and accused Vinay as Ex.PW-16/X-2 and Ex.PW-16/X-3 respectively and photocopy of charge framed against accused Ajay @ Gainda as Ex.PW-X-4. As per record accused Vinay, accused Sumitra and accused Savitri were discharged vide order dated 6.2.2008.
xvi. PW-17 Sh. Ramesh Chander, Ahlmed apart from record pertaining case FIR No. 442/2000, PS Shalimar Bagh, which is prior to commencement of the MCOC Act and hence not relevant for the purpose case. He also proved computer record Ex.PW-17/F regarding against accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil in which he pleaded guilty in case FIR No. 132/2006, PS Shalimar Bagh.
xvii. PW-18 Sh. Raju Dubey, Ahlmad, proved order of taking cognizance as Ex.PW-18/A against accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil in case FIR No. 1018/2006, PS Prashant Vihar, charge Ex.PW-18/B, rukka Ex.PW-18/C, disclosure statement Ex.PW18/D and arrest memo Ex.PW-18/E. He also proved order of taking cognizance as Ex.PW-18/F against accused Sandeep Kalia in case FIR No. 314/2006, PS Prashant Vihar, charge Ex.PW-18/G and Ex.PW-18/H, rukka Ex.PW-18/J, disclosure FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 18 of 55 -19- statement Ex.PW18/K. xviii. PW-19 Sh. Dharmender Sehrawat, Ahlmad proved order of taking cognizance as Ex.PW-19/A against accused persons namely Rajesh @ Dil Dil, accused Ajay @ Gainda, accused Lal Singh, accused Vinay and accused Sandeep, charge Ex.PW-19/B, separate charge against accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil, accused Lal Singh and accused Ajay @ Gainda under Arms Act as Ex.PW-19/C, Ex.PW-19/D and Ex.PW-19/E respectively, arrest memo of accused persons namely Lal Singh, Rajesh @ Dil Dil, Ajay @ Gainda, Vinay and Sandeep as Ex.PW-19/F, Ex.PW-19/G, Ex.PW-19/H, Ex.PW-19/J and Ex.PW-19/K respectively.
xix. PW-20 Ms. Manya Chopra, Asst. Ahlmad proved order of taking cognizance against accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil and Lal Singh in case FIR No. 132/06, PS Shalimar Bagh as Ex.PW-20/A, charge against accused Lal Singh as Ex.PW-20/B, arrest of Lal Singh as Ex.PW-20/C. xx. PW-21 HC Dharamraj arrested accused Lal Singh and accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil in case FIR No. 413/1997, PS Rohini which is prior to commencement of MCOC Act and therefore is not relevant for the purpose of present case.
xxi. PW-22 HC Madan Lal arrested accused sunil and FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 19 of 55 -20- Bharat @ Copper in case FIR No. 1007/06 PS Mangolpuri.
xxii. PW-23 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Ahlmad proved order of taking cognizance against accused Sandeep @ Kaliya in case FIR No.13/06 as Ex.PW-23/A, charge against accused Sandeep as Ex.PW-23/B, arrest of Sandeep Ex.PW-23/C, charge sheet Ex.PW-23/D and disclosure statement of accused Sandeep as Ex.PW-23/E. xxiii. PW-24 ASI Kishan Singh arrested accused Vinay and Ajay @ Gainda in case FIR No. 623/06, PS Mangolpuri and also arrested accused Ajay @ Gainda and accused Vinay in case FIR No. 739/06, PS Mangolpuri and in addition to other, proved arrest memo of accused Vinay as Ex.PW-24/A. xxiv. PW-25 ASI Vinod Kumar proved his endorsement as Ex.PW-14/E on the complaint Ex.PW-14/A made by Sh. Satpal Aggarwal and got the FIR No. 1309/2000, PS Sultanpuri registered.
xxv. PW-26 HC Shri Bhagwan proved rukka Ex.PW-15/C and got the FIR No. 477/05, PS Saraswati Vihar registered and also witness of formal arrest of accused Bharat @ Munshi Ram and disclosure statement.
xxvi. PW-27 ASI Roop Chand proved rukka on the complaint Ex.PW-16/F and got the FIR No. 44/04 FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 20 of 55 -21- registered at PS Mangolpuri, and witness of arrest of accused Bharat @ Popat in the said case.
xxvii. PW-28 Shiv Dayal, LDC, Record Room, Tis Hazari Courts is witness regarding record against accused persons prior to commencement of MCOC Act and therefore is not relevant for the purpose of present case.
xxviii. PW-29 Inspector Mahesh Kumar is witness of arrest of accused persons namely Lal Singh, Rajesh @ Dil Dil, Ajay Gainda, Vinay and Sandeep in case FIR No. 955/2006 and proved their arrest memos as Ex.PW-29/A, Ex.PW-29/B, Ex.PW-29/C, Ex.PW-29/D and Ex.PW-29/E respectively.
xxix. PW-30 SI Raghuvir Singh is witness who formally arrested accused Lal Singh @ Rajesh @ Dil Dil in case FIR No. 804/2002, PS Mangolpuri and proved arrest memo of accused Lal Singh Ex.PW-16/J. xxx. PW-31 SI Ramesh Dutt is witness who arrested accused Lal Singh and Rajesh @ Dil Dil in case FIR No.132/2006, PS Shalimar Bagh and proved arrest memo of accused Lal Singh as Ex.PW-20/C. xxxi. PW-32 SI Naresh Kumar is witness who arrested accused Sandeep @ Kalia in case FIR No.354/2005, PS Prashant Vihar and proved his disclosure statement as Ex.PW-18/A. xxxii. PW-33 Retd. SI Amar Singh is witness who arrested FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 21 of 55 -22- accused Bharat in case FIR No.259/06, PS Mangolpuri and proved his arrest memo as Ex.PW-16/A4.
xxxiii. PW-34 Inspector Dharampal, arrested accused Lal Singh in case FIR No. 442/2006, PS Shalimar Bagh and proved his arrest memo, disclosure statement and supplementary disclosure statement as Ex.PW-17/E, Ex.PW-34/A and Ex.PW-17/D respectively.
xxxiv. PW-35 SI Jagdish Dahiya proved rukka as Ex.PW-16/Y, in respect of case FIR No. 86/2006, PS Rohini and arrest memo of accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil as Ex.PW-16/J. xxxv. PW-36 Sh. Ranbir Singh, LDC, Record Room, Rohini Courts proved order of taking cognizance against accused Ajay @ Vikram @ Gainda in case FIR No.195/05, PS Kanjhawala as Ex.PW-36/A, charge as Ex.PW-36/B, arrest Ex.PW-36/C and sentence Ex.PW-36/D. He is also witness regarding record in case FIR No.386/01, which is prior to commencement of MCOC Act and hence is not relevant for the purpose of present case.
xxxvi. PW-37 Inspector Puran Pant proved arrest memo of accused Ajay @ Vikram @ Gainda as Ex.PW-36/C in case FIR No.195/2005, PS Kanjhawala, under NDPS Act.FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 22 of 55 -23-
xxxvii. PW-38 ASI Ramesh is witness regarding arrest of accused Lal Singh, accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil in case FIR No. 421/99 which is prior to commencement of MCOC Act and therefore is not relevant for the purpose of the present case.
xxxviii. PW-39 SI Krishan Chand proved arrest memo of accused Somwati, Ex.PW-38/A, personal search Ex.PW-38/B, cognizance Ex.PW-38/C and charge Ex.PW-38/D (acquitted) in case FIR No. 274/05, PS Mangolpuri.
xxxix. PW-40 Inspector Manoj Kr. is witness regarding cases against accused persons prior to commencement of MCOC Act and therefore is not relevant for the purpose of present case.
xl. PW-41 Inspector Praveen Kr. is witness regarding arrest of accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil in case FIR No. 1018/2006, PS Prashant Vihar.
xli. PW-42 Sh. Vishram Singh, Ahlmad proved order of taking cognizance against accused Sumitra, charge and her arrest memo as Ex.PW-42/A, Ex.PW-42/B and Ex.PW-42/C respectively in case FIR No. 342/05, PS Adarsh Nagar.
xlii. PW-43 Retd. SI Ram Singh is witness regarding arrest of accused Sumitra in case FIR No. 342/2005, PS Adarsh Nagar.
xliii. PW-44 Sh. Randhir Singh, LDC, Record Room is FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 23 of 55 -24- witness regarding case FIR No. 251/06, PS Kanjhawala and proved order of taking cognizance against accused Risalat Hussain @ Pappu and Sumitra as Ex.PW-44/A, charge framed against accused Risalat Hussain as Ex.PW-44/B and Somwati as Ex.PW-44/C, arrest memo of accused Somwati as Ex.PW-44/D and Risalat Hussain as Ex.PW-44/E. xliv. PW-45 SI V. D. Pandy is witness regarding arrest of accused Risalat Hussain @ Papu and Somwati in case FIR No. 251/06, PS Kanjhawala.
xlv. PW-46 Manoj, Asst. Ahlmad proved order of taking cognizance against accused Sandeep @ Kalia as Ex.PW-46/A, charge against accused Sandeep Kalia as Ex.PW-46/B and arrest memo of accused Sandeep as Ex.PW-46/C in case FIR No. 13/06, PS Rohini.
xlvi. PW-47 Sh. Deepak Naiyyar, UDC, Record Room is witness regarding case FIR No. 282/05, PS Saraswati Vihar and proved order of taking cognizance against accused Lal Singh as Ex.PW-47/A, charge Ex.PW-47/B and arrest memo Ex.PW-47/C. He also proved order of taking cognizance against accused Sandeep @ Kaliya as Ex.PW-47/D, charge u/s 356 IPC as Ex.PW-47/E and charge u/s Ex.PW-47/F 411 IPC, and his arrest memo as Ex.PW-47/G. FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 24 of 55 -25- xlvii. PW-48 SI Vijay Pal is witness who arrested accused Lal Singh in case FIR No. 282/05 PS Saraswati Vihar under NDPS Act.
xlviii. PW-49 Sh. Sarvan Kumar, LDC, Record Room proved extract of entries as Ex.PW-49/A regarding record destroyed in case FIR No. 295/1999 against accused Lal Singh (acquitted), which is prior to commencement of MCOC Act and hence is not relevant and that of case FIR No. 279/2009 against accused Rajesh Kumar (acquitted).
xlix. PW-50 Sh. Sandeep Kumar, LDC, Record Room proved extract of entry as Ex.PW-50/A regarding record destroyed in case FIR No. 129/1999 against accused Rajesh (convicted), which is prior to commencement of MCOC Act and hence is not relevant for the purpose of the present case.
l. PW-52 SI Mahavir Singh is not relevant for the present case as he is witness with respect to case prior to commencement of MCOC Act.
li. PW-53 ASI Raj Kapoor proved attested copy of proposal submitted by Kumar Gynaesh, the then ACP Sultanpuri in present case as Ex.PW-53/A. lii. PW-54 Retd. SI Vinod Kumar proved rukka as Ex.PW-18/J and got the FIR No. 314/05 registered at PS Prashant Vihar and also arrested accused Sandeep @ Kalia.FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 25 of 55 -26-
liii. PW-55 SI Sher Pal is witness who arrested accused Sandeep @ Kalia in case FIR No. 13/06, PS PS Rohini.
liv. PW-61 SI Dharam Pal is the duty officer, who on the basis of rukka registered this case vide FIR No. 54/07 and proved the carbon copy of the same as Ex.PW-61/A and his endorsement as Ex.PW-61/B.
22. The prosecution also examined following witnesses of arrest and investigation :
i. PW-51 ACP S. P. Kaushik is the investigating officer. He in addition to other memos, proved his direction for registration of present case as Ex.PW-51/A, arrest memos of accused persons namely Lal Singh, Vinay, Ajay @ Gainda, Rajesh @ Dil Dil, Sandeep @ Kalia as Ex.PW-51/B, Ex.PW-51/C, Ex.PW-51/D, Ex.PW-51/E, Ex.PW-51/F. He also proved arrest memo of accused Rishalat Hussain as Ex.PW-51/G and his personal search as Ex.PW-51/H. He also proved his request for recording confessional statement of accused Rishalat Hussain u/s 18 of MCOC Act as Ex.PW-51/J, disclosure statement of accused Rishalat Hussain as Ex.PW-51/K. ii. PW-59 Retd. ACP Rajender Singh is the investigating officer who obtained permission for extension of period for filing the report u/s 173 FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 26 of 55 -27- Cr.PC, permission u/s 23(2) MCOC Act and filed the chargesheet. He proved investigating conducted by ACP Jogender Pal, who stated to be expired, as Ex.15/H-1, arrest memo of accused Sumitra as Ex.PW-59/A, arrest memo of accused Bharat Popat as Ex.PW-59/C and of accused Sunil as Ex.PW-59/D. iii. PW-60 ACP Kumar Gyanesh is witness who made proposal for invoking MCOC Act against accused persons and made proposal to take permission u/s 23 (1a) of MCOC Act and proved his proposal as Ex.PW-53/A.
23. It is pertinent to mention that it was noticed on 3.2.2012 that PW-14 and PW-15 were cross-examined only on behalf of accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil. However, counsel on behalf of accused persons Sh. Baldev Raj, stated that he was counsel for all the accused persons and had cross-examined the witnesses on behalf of all accused. However, inadvertently it was mentioned that witness was cross-examined only on behalf of accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil. The statement of the counsel was recorded to this effect.
24. After conclusion of the trial, statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein they denied the prosecution evidence and claimed innocence.
25. Accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil stated that proposal is on the wrong facts without application of mind. He had not made any FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 27 of 55 -28- organization to commit crime nor he had committed any crime as member of organized crime syndicate. Regarding approval u/s 23 (1) (a) of MCOC Act, he stated that it was without application of mind. He stated that he does not know any Risalat Hussain. He also stated that he does not know Bharat. However, he admitted that he is not assessed to income tax department. He further stated that this is a false case. He was falsely implicated in this case due to enmity bore by HC Sushil who was posted at PS Mangolpuri since he was causing harassment to his family members and his mother Sumitra had filed a complaint against HC Sushil to Dy. Commissioner of Police, North-West District at Ashok Vihar, Delhi and vigilance enquiry was also ordered to be conducted against him. In order to pressurize and dissuade him and his mother to process the said complaint further, he and his mother Sumitra were falsely implicated in this case. Initially he chose to lead evidence in his defence, however, later on denied.
26. Similarly accused Sandeep stated that proposals are without application of mind and neither he made any organization nor he committed any crime as a member of organized crime syndicate. He also stated that he does not know accused Risalat Hussain and Bharat. He stated that he was falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and initially he also chose to lead evidence however later on denied.
27. Similarly accused Ajay @ Gainda, Vinay Kumar, Somwati and Lal Singh stated on the line of statement of accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC.
FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 28 of 55 -29-28. Accused Sumitra also denied prosecution evidence and stated on the line of statement of accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil. In addition, she admitted that motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-4S-SD-3239 and vehicle bearing registration no. DL-4S-BB-5608 are registered in her name.
29. Accused Risalat Hussain also stated that proposals are without application of mind and he is not member of any organized crime syndicate. Regarding statement recorded u/s 18 of MCOC Act, he stated that he had not made statement voluntarily. On the other hand, he was threatened by the police officers to make statement. He does not know accused Somwati and Vinay. He admitted that car bearing registration no. DL-4C- S-4862, vehicle bearing registration no. DL-9CP-6763 and vehicle bearing registration no. DL-8S-AK-0684 were registered in his name and belongs to him. He admitted that he is not assessed to income tax department. He also stated that this is a false case and he has was threatened by the police officer to make confessional statement and he does not know any of the co-accused and only met them in jail. He also initially chose to lead evidence in his defence however later on chose not to lead evidence.
30. Accused Bharat also denied prosecution evidence and stated that proposals are without application of mind. He also admitted that he is not assessee to income tax nor any PAN card was allotted to him. He stated that he was falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and initially he also chose to lead evidence however late on denied.
FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 29 of 55 -30-31. Similarly accused Bharat also denied prosecution evidence and stated that proposals and sanction are without application of mind. He also admitted that he is not assessed to income tax. He was falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. Initially he also chose to lead evidence however later on denied.
32. I have heard Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for the state and Sh. Baldev Raj, Ld. Counsel for all accused persons. I have gone through the record.
33. PW-60 Kumar Gyanesh, testified that he was posted as ACP Sultanpuri and a case FIR No. 955/06 was registered at PS Mangolpuri, u/s. 399/402/186/353/307/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act, dated 10.12.2006 at PS Mangolpuri. Subsequent to the initial investigations of the case, the criminal records of the three arrested persons namely Rajesh @ Dil Dil, Ajay and Lal Singh were scrutinized. After scrutinizing the records and other details, he personally felt that Rajesh @ Dil Dil is running an organized syndicate to commit serious crimes like snatching. Apart from many involvements, there were four convictions of Rajesh @ Dil Dil in snatching cases. The scrutiny of records showed that on the organized syndicate provisions of MCOC Act 1999 as extended to GNCT of Delhi is applicable and hence, he initiated the proposal for invoking of MCOC Act on the abovesaid organized syndicate on 06th January, 2007 and the proposal was sent to DCP (North West) to take the permission u/s. 23 (1a) of MCOC Act. He proved his proposal.
34. PW-62 Sh. P. R. Meena testified that on 15.01.2007, he was FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 30 of 55 -31- posted as Joint Commissioner of Police, Northern Range, Delhi. On that day, proposal was submitted by ACP, Sultanpuri, North West District, Delhi through DCP (North West District), containing the details of involvement of cases in which Rajesh @ Dil Dil S/o. Shish Pal alongwith his associates, who are involved in many criminal cases, including attempt to murder, snatching, Arms Act, NDPS Act and preparation to commit dacoity. From the evidence on record in the case file, put up before him, which contains the involvement of Rajesh @ Dil Dil, he was satisfied that, he (accused Rajesh) was personally running an organized crime syndicate with assistance of other associates like Lal Singh, Somwati, Ajay @ Vikram @ Ganda, Vinay, Sandeep, Anil, Sunny, Ram Kishan and Others. He was further satisfied that this amounted to an organized crime by the members of organized crime syndicate defined in Section 2 of MCOCA, as extended to NCT of Delhi. Rajesh @ Dil Dil had a well organized set of associates with whom, he committed crime at regular intervals. There were other associates, who have been assisting him in committing crimes of snatching in organized manner and have been sharing the proceeds. He stated that he granted approval to apply Section 3 (2), 3 (4) OF MCOCA and to investigate the same under the said Act. He approval under Section 23 (1)(a) of MCOCA. On 20.07.2007, ACP Sultanpuri, North West District had submitted his report dated 20.07.2007, alongwith the case file of Case FIR No.54/07, u/s. 3 (2) and 3(4) MCOCA through DCP, North West District, Delhi for according the sanction to prosecute the accused persons u/s. 23(2) MCOCA. After going through the case file, FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 31 of 55 -32- statement of witnesses and related documents placed before he, he was duly satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons for being tried u/s. 3 (2) and 3 (4) of MCOCA and thereafter, he accorded sanction for the prosecution of all the accused persons for their respective offences u/s. 3 (2) and 3(4) of MCOCA for taking cognizance and proved the same.
35. PW-56 Sh. Alok Kumar recorded confessional statement of accused Risalat Hussain u/s 18 of MCOC Act and annexed his certificate regarding correctness of the same.
36. PW-57 Sh. Kamaljeet Arora testified that on 20.02.2007 he was posted as ACMM at Tis Hazari Courts and on that day, SI Rajeev Malhotra of PS Darya Ganj produced accused Risalat Hussain in custody before him. He asked the accused if he had made the confessional statement to Sh. Alok Kumar, Central District on his own or under any pressure. However, accused stated that he had made the statement on his own knowing fully of its consequences and the fact that the same can be read as evidence against him. He recorded statement of accused Risalat Hussain in this regard and proved the same.
37. As regards accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil, PW-2 Sh. Sohan Pal Ahlmad proved order of taking cognizance as Ex.PW-2/A-2 in case FIR No. 86/06, PS Rohini u/s 379/356/411 IPC, PW-4 proved order of taking cognizance in case FIR No. 1018/06, u/s 379/356/34 IPC as Ex.PW-4/B. PW-8 proved Ex.PW-8/A i.e. order of taking cognizance in case FIR No. 132/06, u/s FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 32 of 55 -33- 379/356/411/34 IPC. PW-16 proved order of taking cognizance against accused as Ex.PW-16/E in case FIR No. 804/02, PS Mangolpuri and Ex.PW-16/X in case FIR No. 86/2006 u/s 356/379/411 IPC, PW-17 proved computer record Ex.PW-17/F wherein accused pleaded guilty of offence u/s 356/379/411 IPC in case FIR No. 132/2006. PW-18 proved Ex.PW-18/A order of taking cognizance in case FIR No.1018/2006, u/s 356/379/411 IPC, PW-19 proved Ex.PW-19/A order of taking cognizance in case FIR No. 955/2006 u/s 399/402/186/353/307/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act and PW-20 proved Ex.PW-20/A cognizance against accused in case FIR No. 132/2006, u/s 356/379/411/34 IPC, PS Shalimar Bagh.
38. As regards accused accused Sunil, the only evidence is that he alongwith Bharat were arrested in case FIR No.1007/2006 u/s 61/1/14 Punjab & Excise Act.
39. As regards accused Sumitra the evidence that one motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-4S-SD-3239 and another motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-45-PB-5608 are registered in her name. One FIR No. 820/06 under NDPS Act was registered at PS Mangolpuri wherein she was arrested and order of taking cognizance as Ex.PW-42/A taken in case FIR No. 342/05 u/s 21 of NDPS act. No evidence on record to prove that she had any connection with accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil. It is very interesting to note that accused Sumitra is mother of accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil, Ajay @ Vikram @ Gainda, accused Somwati w/o Lal Singh and Lal Singh is real (bua and uncle) of accused Rajesh Dil @ Dil. Accused Sunil and Bharat @ Popat FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 33 of 55 -34- are brother.
40. As regards accused Bharat @ Popat, prosecution proved order of taking cognizance in case FIR No. 259/06 for offence 379/411/34 IPC, FIR No. 477/05 for offence 356/379/411/34 IPC, FIR No. 44/2004 for offence punishable u/s 392/411 IPC, FIR No. 955/06 apart from that he is not assessed to income tax nor any PAN card allotted.
41. As regards accused Somwati, prosecution proved order of taking cognizance in case FIR No. 206/06 for offence u/s 61 of Punjab and Excise Act (sic), FIR No. 279/04 for offence u/s 21 of NDPS Act and FIR No. 251/06 u/s 29 of NDPS Act.
42. As regards accused Sandeep @ Kalia, the prosecution proved order of taking cognizance in case FIR No. 13/06 for offence punishable u/s 379/356/411/34 IPC, FIR No. 314/05 for offence punishable u/s 356/379/411 IPC, not assessed to income tax and he was arrested in case FIR No. 354/05 u/s 21 of NDPS Act.
43. As regards accused Ajay @ Vikram @ Gainda, the prosecution proved order of taking cognizance in FIR No. 739/06 for offence u/s 379/356/411/34 IPC, FIR No. 623/06 u/s 356/379/411/34 IPC, FIR No. 955/2006 for offence u/s 399/402/186/353/307/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act, and FIR No. 195/05 for offence u/s 21 of NDPS Act.
44. As regards accused Vinay, the prosecution proved order of taking cognizance in FIR No. 1018/06 for offence u/s 379/356/34 IPC, FIR No. 623/06 u/s 356/379/411/34 IPC, FIR FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 34 of 55 -35- No. 955/2006 for offence u/s 399/402/186/353/307/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act.
45. As regards accused Lal Singh, the prosecution has proved order of taking cognizance in cases i.e. FIR No. 132/2006 for offence punishable u/s 379/356/411/34 IPC, FIR No. 804/02 for offence punishable u/s 379/356/411/34 IPC, FIR No. 955/2006 for offence u/s 399/402/186/353/307/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act and FIR No. 282/05 for offence u/s 21 NDPS Act.
46. PW-12 Ajay Kumar Jha, Inspector CIT-7 Income Tax, Vikas Bhawan deposed regarding reply of Income Tax Department u/s 91 Cr.PC Ex.PW-12/A and stated that accused Bharat @ Popat not assessed to income tax nor any PAN Card allotted to him. He also stated that reply to notice Ex.PW-12/B that none of the accused persons referred in letter are income tax assesee i.e. accused no. 1 to 9.
47. PW-3 Sh. Ashok Kumar, Clerk, R.T.O, proved the record Ex.PW-3/A regarding car make Santro Xing XO Model bearing registration No.: DL-4C-S-4862 registered in the name of Risalat Hussain and record Ex.PW-3/B regarding motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-4S-SD-3239 registered in the name of Sumitra. PW-5 Sh. Babu Lal, LDC, Transport Authority proved report and copy of record as Ex.PW-5/A and Ex.PW-5/B regarding vehicle DL-9CP-6763 registered in the name of Risalat Hussain. As per record, the vehicle is hypothecated to ICICI Bank. PW-6 Sh. Naresh Chand, LDC Transport Authority, proved report and copy of record as Ex.PW-6/A and FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 35 of 55 -36- Ex.PW-6/B regarding vehicle DL-4S-BB-5608 registered in the name of Sumitra. PW-7 Sh. Ashok Kumar, LDC Transport Authority, proved report and copy of record as Ex.PW-7/A and Ex.PW-7/B regarding vehicle DL-8S-AK-0684 registered in the name of Risalat Hussain. As per record the vehicle is hypothecated to ICICI Bank.
48. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that the accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil has been acquitted in most of the cases and he has been convicted on the basis of his plead guilty where he had already gone period of punishment and on account of much cases made upon him on the basis of disclosure statement recorded he could not sought bail and remained in custody. In the main case on the basis of which MCOC Act was invoked is resulted in acquittal. In support of his arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted certified copies of judgments wherein respective accused persons were acquitted of the charges.
49. Ld. Defence Counsel further submitted that nature of offence against accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil are such which are not contemplated by the legislature while enacting the MCOC Act to fall in such category. Ld. Counsel further submitted that hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjitsing Brahmjitsing Sharma (infra) case held in order to see category in which offence falls, the object and reasons of enactment is to be seen.
50. Ld. Counsel also submitted that sanction accorded recording the information of commission of offence of organized crime was without application of mind. Ld. Counsel also submitted FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 36 of 55 -37- that the proposal, original of which is itself misplaced by the police mooted against accused Sandeep @ Kalia s/o Jarnail Singh, Vinay s/o Sudesh, Ajay @ Vikram @ Gainda s/o Shish Pap Singh, Lal Singh s/o Ram Singh and from their interrogation their associates were found to be Sandeep @ Kalia, Ram Kishan s/o Ram Naresh and Sunny s/o Neki Ram and Anil s/o Nei Ram etc. Whereas as per approval Ex.PW-13/A, the approval was given against accused Lal Singh, Somwati, Ajay @ Vikram @ Gainda, Vinay, Sandeep @ Kalia, Anil, Sunny and Ram Kishan whereas the name of Somwati was not mentioned in the original proposal and there is no document shown and annexed with the proposal which shows that the name of the accused Somwati has appeared. Further alongwith proposal list of involvement of accused Ram Kishan s/o Ram Naresh was recorded wherein eight cases shown having his involvement but his present position was not given, and name and address of associates were also not written and all theses cases were between 16.04.1999 to 25.06.1999 i.e. the period before the MCOC Act was extended to Delhi and as to how the name of Somwati is given in the approval which would only show non-application of mind while the approval was granted. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there is non-application of mind even in the Sanction Order u/s 23 (2) of MCOC Act Ex.PW-13/B, which was Sanction Order against all ten accused persons shown to be members of Organized Crime Syndicate run by accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil and offence punishable u/s 3 (2) and 3 (4) of MCOC act was invoked qua accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil, Sandeep @ Kalia, Ajay @ Vikram FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 37 of 55 -38- @ Gainda, Vinay, Lal Singh and Bharat @ Popat and offence u/s 3 (4) of MCOC Act qua accused Risalat Hussain, Somwati, Sumitra and Sunil. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the offence under section 3 (4) of MCOC Act against those persons who are members of the organized crime syndicate but the role of Risalat Hussain and Sumitra is shown to be that of abating or facilitating the commission of crime and therefore even the proper sanction was not granted.
51. Ld. Counsel in support of his arguments cited judgments i.e. Ranjitsing Brahmjitsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Anr 2005 (2) JCC, 689; The State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Baburao Gavhane & 13 Ors. 2007 CRL. L. J. 552 (Bombay High Court); State of Maharashtra and Others v. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal And Another, (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 171; Appa @ Prakash Haribhau Londhe v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2007 Crl. L. J. 165; Dilip Kumar v. State of M. P., 1976 Crl. L. J. 184; Krishan Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 1963 (2) Crl. L. J. 851; MCD v. State of Delhi and Ors, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2656; State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah & ors. JT 2008 (10) SC 77; Sherbahadur Akram Khan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 Crl. L. J. (NOC) 104 (BOM.); Rambhai Nathabhai Gadhvi and others v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3475; and State Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Khalil Ahmed, Crl. Rev. P. 42/2012 decided on 23.04.2012 and Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (SC) 1994 (2) RecentCR 168.
52. The MCOC Act, 1999 was extended to Delhi vide Notification FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 38 of 55 -39- nd No. G.S.R. 6 (E) dated 2 January, 2002.
53. Section 2 (1) (d) defines continuing unlawful activity which read as under
"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-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence;
54. The essential ingredients of continuing unlawful activity, are (i) the act is prohibited by law for the time being in force which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, (ii) undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, (iii) in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and (iv) Court has taken cognizance.
55. Section 2 (1) (e) defines organized crime which read as under
"organized crime" means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organized crime 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;FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 39 of 55 -40-
56. Therefore the essential ingredients of the organized crime are that there is (i) continuing unlawful activity, (ii) by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, (iii) by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, (iv) with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency.
57. Section 2 (1) (f) defines 'organized crime syndicate' which read as under
"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;
58. Therefore organized crime syndicate means a group of two or more persons acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulging in activities of organized crime.
59. Section 3 provides punishment for organized crime.
60. Therefore in order to commit organized crime, there must be continuing unlawful activity by an individual and continuing unlawful activity would mean activity prohibited by law, cognizable offence with punishment of three years or more in respect of which more than one chargesheets have been filed within preceding period of 10 years and Court has taken cognizance. Preceding 10 years would mean period preceding 10 years when the MCOC Act is invoked but not before the period when the MCOC Act was enforced in Delhi meaning FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 40 of 55 -41- thereby in the present case continuing unlawful activity should be between 2nd January, 2002 to registration of the present FIR.
61. Firstly I shall take up the submission regarding the acquittal of the accused persons in the cases in which were the basis of invocation of MCOC Act. The essential ingredients to constitute the offence, the cognizance is taken by the court and not the result of the such case and therefore whether the accused has been convicted eventually or not does not make any difference. The Division Bench of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Govind Sakharam Ubhe v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (3) BOM CR ()Cri.) 144 observed with approval law laid down in Bharat Shantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 Bom CR (Cri) 947 that the circumstance of acquittal of the previous charge-sheets is not material. (Para 41)
62. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the MCOC Act is important to assess as to what is intention of legislature to make MCOC Act. To quote:
"Organized crime has for quite some years now come up as a very serious threat to our society. It knows no national boundaries and is fueled by illegal wealth generated by contract killings, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnapping for ransom, collection of protection money and money laundering, etc. The illegal wealth and black money generated by the organized crime is very huge and has serious adverse effect on our economy. It is seen that the organized criminal syndicates make a common cause with terrorist gangs and foster narco terrorism which extend beyond the national boundaries. There is reason to believe that organized criminal gang are operating in the State and thus, FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 41 of 55 -42- there is immediate need to curb their activities."
63. Hon'ble Supreme Court in celebrated case of Ranjitsing Brahmjitsing Sharma (supra) also held that the Statement of Objects and Reasons can be looked into for taking help to interpret.
64. Some provisions of Terrorist and Disruptive (Prevention) Activity Act, 1987 which is pari materia to the MCOC Act and therefore to interpret the provision of MCOC Act it would be worthwhile to see law laid down as to how the provisions should be interpreted. The hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 2623 observed as under :
11. Thus, keeping in view the settled position that the provision of S. 3 of TADA have been held to be constitutionally valid in Kartar Singh's case (1994 Crl.
L. J. 3139) (SC) and the law laid down by this Court in usmanbhai's (AIR 1988 SC 922) and Naranjan's (AIR 1990 SC 1962) cases (supra), it follows that an activity which is sought to be punished under S. 3 (1) of TADA has to be such which cannot be classified as a mere law and order problem or disturbance of public order or even disturbance of the even tempo of the life of the community of any specified locality but is of the nature which cannot be tackled as an ordinary criminal activity under the ordinary penal law by the normal law enforcement agencies because the intended extent and reach of the criminal activity of the 'terrorist' is such which travels beyond the gravity of the mere disturbance of public order even of a 'virulent nature' and may at times transcend the frontiers of the locality and may include such anti-national activities which throw a challenge to the very integrity and sovereignty of the country in its democratic polity. The Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh's case (supra) repelled the FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 42 of 55 -43- submission of Mr. Jethmalani that the preamble of the Act gives a clue "that the terrorist and disruptive activities only mean a virulent form of the disruption of public order" and found the argument to be "inconceivable and unacceptable". Thus, unless the Act complained of falls strictly within the letter and spirit of S. 3 (1) of TADA and is committed with the intention as envisaged by that Section by means of the weapons etc. as are enumerated therein with the motive as postulated thereby, an accused cannot be tried or convicted for an offence under S. 3(1) of TADA. When the extent and reach of the crime committed with the intention as envisaged by S. 3 (1), transcends the local barriers and the effect of the criminal act can be felt in other States or areas or has the potential of that result being felt there, the provisions of S.3(1) would certainly be attracted. Likewise, if it is only as a consequence of the criminal act that fear, terror or/and panic is caused but the intention of committing the particular crime cannot be said to be the one strictly envisaged by S.3(1), it would be impermissible to try or convict and punish an accused under TADA. The commission of the crime with the intention to achieve the result as envisaged by the section and not merely where the consequence of the crime committed by the accused create that result would attract the provisions of S.3(1) of TADA. Thus, if for example a person goes on a shooting spree and kills a number of persons, it is bound to create terror and panic in the locality but if it was not committed with the requisite intention as contemplated by the section, the offence would not attract S 3(1) of TADA. On the other hand, if a crime was committed with the intention to cause terror or panic or to alienate a section of the people or to disturb the harmony etc. it would be punishable under TADA, even if no one is killed and there has been only some person who has seen injured or some damage etc. has been cause to the property, the provisions of S.3 (1) of TADA would be squarely attracted. Where the crime is committed with a view to overawe the Government as by law established or is intended to alienate any section of the people or FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 43 of 55 -44- adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people and is committed in the manner specified in S.3 (1) of TADA, no difficulty would arise to hold that such an offence falls within the ambit and scope of the said provisions. Some difficulty, however, arises where the intended activity of the offender results in striking terror or creating fear and panic amongst the people in general or a section thereof. It is in this situation that the courts have to be cautious to draw a line between the crime punishable under the ordinary criminal law and the ones which are punishable under Section 3(1) of TADA. It is of course neither desirable nor possible to catalogue the activities which would strictly bring the case of an accused under S.3(1) of TADA. Each case will have to be decided on its own facts and no rule of thumb can be applied."
65. In order to appreciate as to what is the necessary evidence to prove the MCOC Act and what is the law laid down in respect of various provisions, it would be profitable to have overview of the law on this subject. The case titled as Prafulla v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 870 (Bombay High Court) is one of the most considered judgments under MCOC Act which deeply anaylsed the provisions of the MCOC Act. To quote:
42. The Court that rejected the objections to the constitutional validity of the definition. It is thus clear that apart from previous charge-sheets there has to be a continuation, an activity to which MCOCA is applied.
43. This fortifies the conclusion that mere proof of filing charge-sheets in the past is not enough. In is only one of the requisites for constituting offence of organized crime. If only the past charge-sheets were to be enough to constitute offence of organized 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 FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 44 of 55 -45- Court been cited before the learned Single Judge deciding Amarsingh v. State, 2006 ALL MR (Crl.) 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 judgment of division Benches in Jaisingh v. State, 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1506 and Bharat Shah v. State, 2003, ALL MR (Cri) 1061, which I am bound to follow.
50. True, some of the offences in the previous charge-
sheets in respect of some appellants may show that those appellants have indulged in offenes of robbery etc. from which pecuniary benefits may flow. But the continuation of the activities, with which the appellants, rather only the ring leaders, have been charged is mere possession of weapons punishable under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and not an activity from which pecuniary benefits may flow. Therefore, it cannot be said that any of the appellants had been shown to have committed offence of the organized crime.
66. In the said case, it was further held that if there is no organized crime, there could be no organized crime syndicate and consequently there would be no question of holding a person guilty of being member of such a non-existent syndicate. (Para 53)
67. In the same judgment, it is further held that provisions of Section 23 of MCOCA are mandatory in nature and not an empty formality and having regard to the stringent provision of MCOCA, its provisions will have to be very strictly interpreted and concerned authorities would have to be bound down to the strict observance of the said provisions. (Para 55)
68. It is also held that to sum up, in these cases, conviction of the FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 45 of 55 -46- appellants is based upon only filing of charge-sheets in the past. There is no overt act or omission, which would amount to continuation of unlawful activity carried out by use of force for the purpose of pecuniary gain, with which the appellants are charged. The only overt acts attributed to, and only to, the gang leaders, is possession of arms at their houses, when they were in custody, and after offences were registered under MCOCA. For these offences the learned Judge, Special Court has acquitted them. Crime Nos.37 and 38 of 2001 in which MCOCA was sought to be applied, ended up in filing charge-sheets without applying MCOCA and eventual acquittal of the accused therein. This leaves a big question mark or rather question marks, not only about application of mind while granting approval and sanction under Section 23, but also about mindlessness in pursuing the while matter. Conviction of the appellants cannot therefore be sustained. (Para 58).
69. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the prosecution in order to prove their case has proved the order of taking cognizance against accused persons and in some cases framing of the charges and arrest of the accused persons in those cases. Whether such evidence would adequate to prove the offence against the accused persons ? The answer would certainly be 'No'. The filing of the previous charge-sheets and cognizance taken by the Court on those charge-sheets only proves the continuing unlawful activities. But in order to prove the offence of organized crime, the prosecution must bring forward some more evidence which would show that in continuation of FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 46 of 55 -47- continuing unlawful activities, the accused have committed the offences with use of violence or threat of violence or coercion or intimidation and any other unlawful means with objective of gaining pecuniary benefits. However, the prosecution has not produced any evidence to this effect. Therefore the offence of commission of organized crime is not proved.
70. Even otherwise, lets examine whether the nature of offences in the present case are contemplated by the legislature to be one which calls of invocation of MCOC Act. From Statement of Objects and Reasons aimed checking illegal wealth generated by contract killings, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnapping for ransom, collection of protection money and money laundering, etc. Although list is not exhaustive, offence arising out of the similar nature would fall in the category.
71. As per FIR No. 1018/06 of which certified copy of one page of the chargesheet, has been proved by the prosecution. As per it, one would find that complainant had got recorded that at about 11:45 a.m. when she came out of her society and was waiting, suddenly one motorcycle having two boys came, stopped, and the person sitting as a pillion rider had snatched her gold chain and ran towards outer ring road and she can identify on seeing the person who was sitting on the back of the rider. She could not note down the number of the motorcycle and its make.
72. The prosecution also filed certified copy of the one page of chargesheet in case FIR No. 132/06. As per the same one Renu FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 47 of 55 -48- Jain got her statement recorded that at about 11:45 a.m., she was going towards her house, two boys on the black motorcycle came and person sitting on the back, snatched her chain and ran away.
73. In FIR No. 804, the copy of the statement of the victim has been given, in which it is stated that when she reached near the gas agency, two wheeler scooter number of which is unknown came having two young boys who stopped near them and snatched her locket and ran away but she could not note down their number.
74. Similarly offence of chain snatching against other co-accused are of similar nature where they had snatched the chain stopping nearby but there is no allegation that they made any threatening posture or intimidated them before snatching the chain. It is also common in all the cases that immediately after snatching the chain they ran away.
75. Use of violence or threat of violence or coercion or intimidation and any other unlawful means or other unlawful means would be in relation with Statement of Objects and Reasons of the MCOC Act which does not appear to be so in the nature of these cases.
76. Apparently the offence of chain snatching are covered under ordinary penal laws. No evidence has been led by the prosecution to show as to what wealth have been generated out of these organized illegal activities. The prosecution has even failed to produce on record the single immovable property, FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 48 of 55 -49- money in bank account, in their name or in the name of some other person on their behalf. It is mentioned in the charge-sheet that accused persons are living lavish life in the posh colony of Ghaziabad, yet no particulars of those immovable property have been obtained nor any evidence of any witness has been recorded who could have proved their life style.
77. The prosecution has got proved notice u/s 91 Cr.PC by the income tax department as Ex.PW-12/A that no assessee of the name of Bharat @ Popat s/o Munshi Ram R/o N-720, Mangolpuri exist in ward - 21(3) having territorial jurisdiction over the area of Mangolpuri nor any PAN is allotted to him. As regards other co-accused, the reference was made to the letter dated 4.4.2007 and telephonic conversation wherein it is stated that none of persons referred in the said letter are income tax assessee. But the said letter has not been produced. Therefore it cannot be proved in respect of accused other than Bharat @ Popat that they were not income tax assessee. Though they have admitted in their statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC that they are not assessed to income tax. It is merely stated that they are not filing income tax return and they do not have PAN Card, that by itself does not mean that it is difficult for one to say that a motorcycle, a mode of transportation, cannot be acquired even by a person who is not paying income tax.
78. Secondly and more importantly, there is clear non-application of mind on the part of the sanction granting authority as to how name of a person (accused Somwati) has occurred in the sanction which was not given even in the proposal and how FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 49 of 55 -50- sanction is accorded against a person (accused Ram Kishan) whose illegal activity was before even enactment was present MCOC Act.
79. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that he was conducting Ram Kishan case, who was charged as a receiver of stolen property, was an old man and probably at the time of granting the sanction he was not alive and no investigation has been carried out qua him. Apart from the chargesheet, cognizance taken by the court in the charge sheets, there is not even an iota of evidence collected by the IO as to how their organized illegality activity is continuing. Surprisingly IO has not even recorded the confessions of the members of the organized crime syndicate which could have thrown more lights and lend credence to the prosecution case.
80. Now coming to the second set of evidence. The important evidence in respect of accused Risalat Hussain is confession made u/s 18 of MCOC Act which is admissible in evidence against him as well as against other co-accused who are facing trial. Before appreciating his confession, it is worthwhile to have overview to law on the confession. In celebrated case of Jamil Ahmed And Another v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 9 Supreme Court Cases 373, a judgment under S. 15 of TADA which is pari materia to Section 18 of MCOC Act. To quote :
35. To sum up our findings in regard to the legal arguments addressed in these appeals, we find :FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 50 of 55 -51-
(i) If the confessional statement is properly recorded, satisfying the mandatory provision of Section 15 of the TADA Act and the Rules made thereunder, and if the same is found by the court as having been made voluntarily and truthfully then the said confession is sufficient to base a conviction on the maker of the confession.
(ii) Whether such confession requires corroboration or not, is a matter for the court considering such confession on facts of each case.
(iii) In regard to the use of such confession as against a co-accused, it has to be held that as a matter of caution, a general corroboration should be sought for but in cases where the court is satisfied that the probative value of such confession is such that it does not require corroboration then it may base a conviction on the basis of such confession of the co-accused without corroboration. But this is an exception to the general rule of requiring corroboration when such confession is to be used against a co-accused.
(iv) The nature of corroboration required both in regard to the use of confession against the maker as also in regard to the use of the same against a co-accused is of a general nature, unless the court comes to the conclusion that such corroboration should be on material facts also because of the facts of a particular case. The degree of corroboration so required is that which is necessary for a prudent man to believe in the existence of facts mentioned in the confessional statement.
(v) The requirement of sub-rule (5) of Rule 15 of the TADA Rules which contemplates a confessional statement being sent to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate who, in turn, will have to send the same to the Designated Court is not mandatory and is FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 51 of 55 -52- only directory. However, the court considering the case of direct transmission of the confessional statement to the Designated Court should satisfy itself on facts of each case whether such direct transmission of the confessional statement in the facts of the case creates any doubt as to the genuineness of the said confessional statement.
81. As per Section 18 of MCOC Act, the confessional statement recorded by officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police and recorded by such police officer either in writing or on any mechanical devices like cassettes, tapes or sound tracks from which sound or images can be produced, shall be admissible in trial of such person or co- accused, abettor or conspirator provided that the co-accused, abettor or conspirator is charged and tried in the same case together with the accused.
82. The confession statement was recorded by Sh. Alok Kumar, DIG at GO's Mess, Alipur Road. Everyone was sent out including IO. Primary question were asked. He was also told his statement can be used in the court and he was not bound to make the statement and he was asked to go and to come on the next morning after proper thinking. On the next morning at 10:30 a.m. the statement was recorded after conducting proper precaution and in language understood by the accused. The certificate was annexed after the statement and date and time was put. He was cross-examined and suggested that accused had not given voluntary statement.
83. The accused Risalat Hussain was produced before PW-57 FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 52 of 55 -53- ACMM after his confessional statement was recorded and accused before ACMM has stated that he has made confessional statement on his own and statement to this effect was recorded. Therefore as regards voluntariness of the statement and fact that the same was duly recorded as per law is proved.
84. However what is confession actually speaks is the question ?
Accused Risalat Hussain stated that he knows Somwati and Vinay and they had asked to get the vehicle financed and he does not know whether they are involved in crime. First of all accused Somvati and Vinay asked him to get Santro Car financed and said that they do not have documents for getting the same financed and therefore, he got financed the vehicle in his name from Hans Hundai and paid down payment of Rs. 78,000/- which was given by accused Somvati and Vinay to him. Later on, he paid installment from his bank account of Bank of Rajasthan and accused Somvati and Vinay used to give him money so that he can pay installment and said car is with Vinay. They had also got financed one motorcycle Bajaj Pulsar and one ALTO Car in the same manner and down payment of 10,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively were given, paid installments from his account by taking money from them. He was asked as to whether he knew what they are doing with these vehicle. He replied that now he came to know that they commit some crime etc and do not have any other work. He was also asked whether he got financed any other vehicles, to which he stated that he did not get financed but stated that he has got husband of accused Somvati released on bail in which he had FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 53 of 55 -54- given FD of Rs.15,000/- and the money was given by accused Somvati and the said FD was deposited in the court.
85. From this confessional statement itself, it is nowhere shown that the Risalat Hussain knew Somwati and Vinay were involved in the crime and for that purpose they were getting the vehicle financed. As per record of transport authority, the same vehicles were registered in the name of Risalat Hussain but it is nowhere shown that those vehicles were in possession of accused Vinay and Somwati. Therefore the necessary mens rea to connect the accused Risalat Hussain with Somwati and Vinay is not proved. As regards the accused Somwati and Vinay also, this confessional statement cannot be proved as the present confessional statement is exculpatory in nature. Therefore confessional statement is liable to be rejected qua other co-accused.
86. As per discussion above, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove their cases against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, they are entitled to acquittal. Accordingly accused persons namely Rajesh @ Dil Dil, Sandeep @ Kalia, Ajay @ Vikram @ Gainda, Vinay, Risalat Hussain, Sumitra, Lal Singh, Bharat @ Papot, Sunil and Somwati are acquitted of the charges. Accused persons namely Rajesh @ Dil Dil, Sandeep @ Kalia, Ajay @ Vikram @ Gainda, Vinay, Risalat Hussain, Sumitra, Lal Singh and Bharat @ Papot are in j/c, therefore, they be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Bail bonds of accused Sunil and Somwati stand cancelled. Their sureties are discharged. Case FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 54 of 55 -55- property, if any, be destroyed after the expiry of period of appeal. Document, if any, be returned after cancellation of the endorsement, if any. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court today i.e. on 30.07.2012 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-03/Special Judge-MCOCA Outer/Rohini/ Delhi 30.07.2012 FIR No. : 54/2007, PS : Mangolpuri State v. Rajesh @ Dil Dil Page 55 of 55