Delhi District Court
Sc No. 7/14, Fir No. 66/09, State vs . Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 1 Of 37 on 4 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDRA SHEKHAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE02 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case No. 7/14
Unique Case ID No. 02401R0173112010
FIR No. 66/09
U/s: 3 MCOC Act
PS: Special Cell
STATE
Versus:
1. Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi
S/o Paras Nath,
R/o Village Kaseru Pure Dayal,
Jaun Pur, U.P.
Present Add: C102, Siddhi Vinayak Society,
orlem, Malad (W), Mumbai.
2. Miraz Ahmed
S/o Sh. Jalaluddin Khan,
R/o E435, Ashok Vihar Colony,
PS Jaitpura, Varanasi, U.P.
3. Iftikar Ahmed @ Babloo Kana @ Ajay
S/o Sh. Mukhtyar Ahmed,
R/o J8/50 Digia,
PS Jaitpura, Varanasi, U.P.
4. Mukhtar Ansari
S/o Subhanullah Ansari,
R/o Village Mohamaddabad,
District Gazipur, U.P.
SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 37
Present Add:
(i) 111, Darzi Mohalla, Ward No. 2,
Yusufpur, PS Mohamadabad, Gazipur, U.P
(ii) H. No. 107, BBlock, Darul Shafa, Lucknow, U.P.
Date of Institution : 27.04.2010
Date of Reserving Judgment : 30.01.2016
Date of Pronouncement : 04.02.2016
Conclusion : Acquittal
Pages: 1 to 37
JUDGEMENT:
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
1. Precisely the case of the prosecution is that on 03.11.2009 Sh.
Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, ACP, PS Special Cell/NDR/OD/Lodhi Colony sent a proposal to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Cell Police Headquarters, MSO building, New Delhi through concerned DCP seeking approval under Section 23 (1) (a) of the Maharashtra Control of Crime Act, 1999 (as extended in N.C.T of Delhi on 02.01.2002 hereinafter referred as MCOCA) against accused Prem Prakash Singh and members of his organized crime syndicate stating that on 16.09.2009 a conversation between accused Miraz Ahmad and accused Iftikar Ahmad (both the residents of Banaras, U.P.) on mobile phone was intercepted by the police which revealed that a conspiracy was going on to extort money from one Ashok Tebriwal; a businessman of Delhi. On the basis of the aforesaid intercepted conversation, a case FIR No. 63/09 dated 25.10.2009 under Section 120B r/w Section 387 IPC PS Special Cell, New Delhi was registered. The accused Prem Prakash Singh had made an extortion call to aforesaid businessman and demanded Rs. 1 crore. Accused Prem Prakash SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 37 Singh and his associate Mahender Ayare @ Shetty were arrested on 29.10.2009 and during investigation of the aforesaid case, accused Miraz Ahmed and Iftikar Ahmed were also arrested. The investigation of that case revealed that accused Prem Prakash Singh was a desperate criminal, well known for his high profile contract killings. He and his associates had shot dead many traders, who refused to meet his demands of extortion in North India. He was wanted in many murder cases in Banaras and in Jaunpur, U.P. He was persistently extorting money from affluent businessmen of North India and his terror was as such that the victims and witnesses did not come forward to make complaint or provide any information against him to the authorities. He had a well organized gang of shooters, who carried out the extortions and eliminated those who refused to succumb to their demands. A cash rewards of Rs. 7 lacs was announced by the Government on his arrest. The accused Prem Prakash Singh was indulged in crime for a long time singly or jointly as a syndicate. There were at least about 17 criminal cases registered under serious and heinous cognizable offences against him. Besides the aforesaid involvements several reported and unreported crimes in various parts of India have also come into light.
1.1. Accused Prem Prakash Singh started his criminal carrier in the early 1980's when he was charge sheeted for killing one Bhullan Singh resident of Jaunpur, U.P, over some money dispute. Later, he killed one Ram Chander Singh, a local BJP leader and his official bodyguard, for which he was charge sheeted also. The accused had evaded his arrest and went to Varanasi and stayed there with one Anil Singh (now expired) for SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 37 about 5 years. During the aforesaid period of 5 years, he and his associate Qayub, at the instance of Anil Singh shot dead one Sitaram Chaurasiya, a local rival of Anil Singh. While staying with Anil Singh, accused Prem Prakash Singh came in to contact with one Kalam (Ex. MLA, now expired) and Vijay Yadav, both resident of Varanasi, who introduced him with accused Mukhtar Ansari. At that time accused Mukhtar Ansari was a local gangster. He later on had come in the politics. Kalam asked Mukhtar Ansari to keep accused Prem Prakash Singh with him and accused Prem Prakash Singh joined Mukhtar Ansari and started collecting protection money from coal dealers, contractors and affluent businessmen etc. 1.2. Accused Prem Prakash Singh along with one Maya Shankar had killed Pradeep Pandey, a resident of Baharaich, UP and a rival of Mukhtar Ansari in Said Pur Market, Ghazi Pur and fled away. The weapons to commit offences were provided by accused Mukhtar Ansari to accused Prem Prakash. The name of accused Prem Prakash Singh did not come forward in the murder of aforesaid Pradeep Pandey and hence he was not arrested in the said case.
1.3. In the year 1998 accused Prem Prakash Singh was arrested for the first time on a joint operation of Delhi Police and STF, U.P in case FIR no. 686/98 dated 11.09.1998 under Section 186/353/332/307/34 IPC read with Section 27 of Arms Act PS Samay Pur Badli, Delhi. His one associate Yatender R/o Dadri, UP, was killed in this operation. Accused Prem Prakash Singh was released on bail in this case in the year 2002 but he jumped the bail and continued his activities of extortions and indulged in SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 37 contract killings and shifted his base to Mumbai through contacts of Mukhtar Ansari. Accused Prem Prakash Singh and his associates indulged in organized crime using threat and violence, intimidation and coercion for pecuniary benefits and acquired sophisticated weapons, vehicles and other logistics used in the commission of crimes.
1.4. On 29.11.2005 accused Prem Prakash Singh along with his other associates in conspiracy with accused Mukhtar Ansari had killed one Krishnanand Rai, an MLA from Mohammadabad constituency in Ghazipur district along with his gunman & supporters in broad day light near his native village Goundour using highly sophisticated weapons. Accused Prem Prakash was named in the case along with accused Mukhtar Ansari, Afzal Ansari and six other notorious gangster Sanjeev Maheshwari @ Jeeva and others. The accused Prem Prakash absconded, but he was charge sheeted along with other coaccused persons. Thereafter, accused Prem Prakash Singh reorganized his gang and extorted money from coal dealers of east UP and gained share in tenders. Accused Prem Prakash was involved in five cases of murder, extortion, Gunda Act, etc in Delhi and UP during last 10 years and he and his associates and their crime syndicate used violence and threats of violence & intimidation, coercion and other such unlawful means to gain pecuniary benefits and advantages for themselves and hence have indulged in continuous organized crime activities. The details of the cases in which accused Prem Prakash Singh and his other associates are involved in the past 10 years are as under :
S. No. FIR No. Section of Law Police Station 1. 1/82 147/148/323 IPC Sureri, Jaunpur SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 37 2. 45/82 392/307 IPC Sureri, Jaunpur 3. 148/84 394/302 IPC Rampur, Jaunpur 4. 254/93 147/148/149/307/302/397/120B IPC Line Bazar, Jaunpur 5. 202/95 147/148/149/307/302 IPC Cantt., Jaunpur 6. 70/96 147/148/149/307/302/120B IPC Rampur, Jaunpur 7. 104/96 147/148/149/302 IPC Maduadeeh, Varanasi 8. 46/97 147/148/149/302 IPC Lanka, Varanasi 9. 69/97 302 IPC Rampur, Varanasi 10. 93/97 110 Cr. P.C Sureri, Jaunpur 11. 350/97 3(1) Gangster Act Rampur, Jaunpur 12. 686/98 186/353/307/332/34 IPC & 25/27 Samaypur Badli, Delhi Arms Act 13. 57/02 307/302/506/120B IPC, 3(1) UP Dashwamedh, Varanasi Gangster Act 14. 111/02 302/120B IPC Chaitganj, Varanasi 15. 73/03 3(1) UP Gunda Prevention Act Sureri, Jaunpur 16. 589/05 147/148/149/302/404/120B IPC, 25 Bhawalcol, Gazipur Arms Act & 7 CLA Act 17. 63/09 387/120B IPC PS Special Cell, Delhi 1.5 The criminal record of the accused Prem Prakash shows that
the accused was running an organized crime syndicate for extortion, jointly as well as singly. He was indulged in continuing unlawful activity for more than one decade. He has a widespread crime syndicate in Delhi, Maharashtra, Gujarat, UP and other States. Accused committed the organized crime singly and with his associates as syndicate or as a member of syndicate with the objectives of gaining pecuniary benefits for him and other members of the syndicate through violence, threats of violence, intimidation, using other unlawful means and due to these activities, syndicate accumulated huge amount of money by their continuing unlawful SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 37 activities.
1.6. The continuing activity of accused Prem Prakash Singh and his associate are covered within the offence described under Section 2(1)
(e) of MCOCA as applicable in Delhi. The accused Prem Prakash Singh and his associates have used prohibited, illegal, automatic, assault rifles, pistol, revolver to commit crime. The accused Prem Prakash Singh and his associates through their organized crime syndicate have committed cognizable offences which were punishable with the imprisonment of three years or more on numerous occasions with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other advantages. The prerequisite of filing of more than one charge sheet before a competent Court against the accused Prem Prakash and his associates within the period of last 10 years has been fulfilled and the Court has also taken cognizance on the same, hence, the criminal activities of accused Prem Prakash Singh and his associates is duly covered under the provisions of MCOCA.
1.7. The Joint Commissioner of Police after receiving the aforesaid proposal, accorded approval for the registration of case against accused Prem Prakash Singh and his associates and authorized ACP/Spl. Cell/NDR to investigate into the matter.
1.8. The ACP Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav after receiving the aforesaid approval wrote a rukka on 07.11.2009 stating the aforesaid facts and got the case registered on the same day vide FIR no. 66/09 under SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 37 Section 3 of MCOCA, 1999 PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, Delhi. The investigation of the case was handed over to him. However, ACP Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav was transferred and on 09.11.2009 and investigation of the case was handed over to ACP Sh. Bhisham Singh, who arrested the accused Prem Prakash, Meraz Ahmad and Iftikar Ahmad and obtained the sanction to prosecute from Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Cell and thereafter filed the charge sheet against the aforesaid accused persons.
2. The court took the cognizance of the offences under MCOCA against the aforesaid three accused persons.
3. Thereafter, ACP Bhisham Singh conducted investigation against the accused Mukhtar Ansari, arrested him and obtained sanction to prosecute against him from the aforesaid authority and filed supplementary charge sheet against him.
4. The opportunities were given to Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Defence counsels on behalf of the accused persons to address their respective arguments on the point of charge and after considering them and passing orders on the point of charge Ld. Predecessor of this court, framed charges on 03.05.2012 under Section 3(1)(ii) of MCOCA as extended to NCT of Delhi against accused Prem Prakash Singh and under Section 3 (2) of the aforesaid Act, against accused Miraz Ahmad and Iftikar Ahmad and under Section 3 (4) of the aforesaid Act against the accused Mukhtar Ansari. The charges framed against the accused persons were read over and explained to them in their vernacular and they were asked if they plead SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 37 guilty for the said offences or claim trial. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
5. Therefore, the opportunities were given to the Ld. Addl. PP for the State to lead Prosecution evidence to prove charges framed against the accused persons. Prosecution has examined 36 witnesses in total.
PW1 ASI Bhup Singh is the Duty Officer. He has proved lodging of FIR as Ex. PW1/A. PW2 SI Rishipal Singh He went to Goa with accused Iftikar Ahmed on the instructions of the DCP to collect the record of the extortion calls made by the accused but he could not get the requisite record from the hotel.
PW3 Anand Kumar Tiwari (public witness) - He was Supervisor - cum - Accountant in Tulsiyan Coal Syndicate but he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.
PW4 Rizwan Ahmed (public witness) - Owner of RDV Traders, a coal supplier - turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.
PW5 Guru Prasad Seth (public witness) - He did not state any incriminating fact against any of the accused persons.
PW6 Devender Pratap Singh, PW7 Hemant Dass, PW8 Deepak Kumar Singh and PW9 Ajay Kumar Jain - public witnesses - They turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.
PW10 Babu Qiledar - He stated that in 2009 the police came to his hotel with accused Prem Prakash Singh and Iftikar Ahmed but in cross examination he deposed that accused Prem Prakash Singh did not come to SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 37 his guest house. He is unreliable witness as he did not produce any document and stated in his deposition that he cannot say - who stayed during 2007 to 2009.
PW11 Sant Lal Jaiswal, PW12 Shailesh Asthana, PW13 Ram Pal Singh, PW14 Ashok Tebriwal - Public witnesses - They turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.
PW15 P. N Aggarwal - Joint Commissioner of Police who gave approval under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA vide Ex. PW15/A and granted sanction under Section 23(2) of MCOCA vide Ex. PW15/B against accused Prem Prakash and other accused persons except Mukhtar Ansari. He also gave sanction undre Section 23(2) of MCOCA vide Ex. PW15/C against accused Mukhtar Ansari.
PW16 ACP Ram Mehar - Operation Central District, Delhi - He deposed about the registration of the case FIR no. 456/93, under Section 365/387/364 IPC, PS Tilak Marg against accused Mukhtar Ansari, Ataur Rehman and Afroz Khan, FIR no. 508/93 u/S 25 Arms Act and u/S 5 of TADA PS Kalkaji against accused Mukhtar Ansari but deposition of this witness is not relevant as the cases does not fall in the category of cases preceding 10 years from the date of commission of offence under MCOCA.
PW17 Nirbhay Kumar - Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences - II, C.B.I, New Delhi - He partly investigated the FIR no. 589/05, PS Bhanwarkole, Gazipur, U.P. His deposition is not relevant as the offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of Delhi.
PW18 Shyam Shankar Pandey - Inspector, CBI, I.D Sector, Varanasi - He investigated the crime number 57/02, PS Dashwamedh, U/S 307/302/506/120B IPC, 3(1) UP Gangsters Act against accused Prem SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 37 Prakash and crime number 111/02, PS Chaitganj, Varanasi, u/S 302/120B IPC against accused Prem Prakash and his associates. But the deposition of this witness is also not relevant as the commission of the offences were not made in Delhi.
PW19 Ashish Kumar Sahu - Public witness - He had turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.
PW20 Rajesh Kumar - Sr. Branch Manager, Bank of India, Badi Bazar - Varanasi, U.P. He brought the record of account no. 690110100005751 of accused Iftikar Ahmed for the period 18.02.2008 till 10.10.2013. But he did not brought the certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act, hence, the evidence is not admissible in evidence.
PW21 Sanjay Sharma - Legal Manager, ICICI Bank, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - He produced the record of account no. 628301028330 of accused Iftekar Ahmed from 10.04.2008 to 10.10.2013. But he did not brought the certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act, hence, the evidence is not admissible in evidence.
PW22 Sudhir Yadav - Assistant Manager, HDFC Bank, Ansal Classic Tower, Rajouri Garden, Delhi - He brought the record of account no. 1442382 pertaining to the accused Mahender Abhimanyu Ayare for the period 06.05.2008 to 04.10.2013. But his deposition is not relevant as the Mahender Abhimanyu Ayare is not accused in this case.
PW23 Sant Kumar - Sr. Assistant, R.T.O, Varanasi, U.P - He brought the record of registration of vehicle no. UP65AC8970 in the name of accused Iftikar Ahmed and record of UP65R2673 in the name of accused Meraz Ahmed. But his evidence is not admissible as he did not brought the attested copies required under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 37PW24 Musafir - He produced the ITR for the assessment year 200809 pertaining to the accused Iftikar Ahmed on 16.01.2009 and permanent account no. AFWPA8161R but he did not brought the requisite certificate of 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, hence his evidence is not admissible in evidence.
PW25 Praveen Sinha - He brought the record of permanent account no. CELPSO975P in the name of Seema Singh, the wife of accused Prem Prakash Singh and stated that she did not file the ITR for the assessment year 200809 but his evidence is not admissible as he did not bring certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
PW26 Vinay Pratap Singh - Deputy Jailor - district Jail, Gazipur, U.P. He brought the entries of a register and stated that at serial no. 90, entries were made on 09.07.2007, 25.01.2009 and 17.02.2009 regarding visit of one Meraz with accused Mukhtar Ansari but in the cross examination he has stated that the parentage and address of the accused, who met Mukhtar Ansari was not mentioned in the record and it was not bearing the signature and stamp of any officer and hence, his evidence is of no value to the prosecution.
PW27 Chander Mani Prasad - LDC, Record Room (Crimina), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi - He produced the record pertaining to the FIR no. 63/09, PS Special Cell, u/S 387/120B IPC titled as State vs. Prem Prakash and Ors. The record showed that the accused Prem Prakash, Iftikar Ahmed and Meraz Ahmed with one other accused Mahender Ayare were acquitted on 23.01.2012 and the accused Mukhtar Ansari was not an accused in that case. The cognizance was taken by ld. Trial Court on 02.01.2010.
SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 37PW28 Rajiv Ranjan, Nodal Officer - Tata Telecom Services - He has stated that company is not having the CDR of mobile phone no. 9236498873 and 9236848997, hence the deposition of this witness is of no value.
PW29 Kaushik Ghoshal - Nodal Officer, Vodafone, U.P. He had brought the CDR and CAF of mobile no. 9565350151 and certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and CAF of mobile no. 9918474885 in the name of one Ram Lal but in the crossexamination stated that the print of the aforementioned CDR were not taken in his presence, therefore, the evidence of this witness is also not admissible in evidence.
PW30 Ct. Ravi Dutt He deposed that vide memo Ex. PW30/A, a Maruti Zen was seized from Malad West, from the wife of accused Prem Prakash by SI Umesh Barthwal.
PW31 Inspector Umesh Barthwal, PW32 Inspector Chandrika Prasad, PW33 Inspector Lalit Mohan - They assisted the IO ACP Bhisham Singh during investigation.
PW34 DCP Sanjeev Kr. Yadav - 1st IO of the Case.
PW35 DCP Bhisham Singh - IO of the case.
PW36 Narender Nath Singh - Public witness - He deposed against accused Prem Prakash Singh in his examinationinchief but in cross examination admitted that he had never seen the accused Prem Prakash Singh or heard his voice, therefore, he cannot tell as to whether accused Prem Prakash Singh had spoken to him and made an extortion call. Therefore, his deposition is of no value to the prosecution.
6. After recording the prosecution evidence, the incriminating SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 37 evidence on record against the accused persons, was brought to their notice and their statements u/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded separately.
7. The accused persons were asked if they want to lead their defence evidence, the accused Miraz Ahmad examined DW1 Abdul Kalam and DW2 Azim Mohd. Khan on his behalf and accused Iftikar Ahmad examined DW 3 Mohd. Zahid on his behalf. The other accused persons did not lead their defence evidence despite opportunities given to them as per law.
8. The accused persons were also directed to furnish their bail bonds u/s 437A of the Cr.P.C before conclusion of trial. They furnished the same by producing their respective sureties in the court.
9. I have heard the final arguments addressed by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsels for the accused persons. The Ld. Addl. PP for the state has submitted that the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt hence all the accused person may be convicted for the charges framed against them. But, the Ld. Defence counsels submitted that the case of the prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, hence all the accused persons may be acquitted forthwith.
10. I have considered the submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Defence counsels, perused the judicial record, the relevant provisions of the law and the case law cited by the respective parties.
SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 3711. It is observed that the accused Prem Prakash Singh has been charged with offence of Organized Crime which is punishable under Section 3 (i) (ii) of MCOCA, therefore, the prosecution is under obligation to prove the ingredients of the offence of organized crime defined under Section 2 (e) of MCOCA.
The accused Miraz Ahmed and Iftikar Ahmed have been charged with the offence of organized crime which is punishable under Section 3 (2) of MCOCA. Therefore, the prosecution is under obligation to prove that the accused Miraz Ahmed and Iftikar Ahmed conspired or attempted to commit or advocated, abetted or knowingly facilitated the commission of an organized crime or any act preparatory to organized crime.
The accused Mukhtar Ansari has been charged with offence punishable under Section 3 (4) of MCOCA therefore, prosecution is under obligation to prove that the accused Mukhtar Ansari was a member of an organized crime syndicate.
The Section 2 (1) (d), (e) & (f) are the relevant provisions which defined continuing unlawful activity, organized crime and organized crime syndicate respectively which are as under :
"2. Definitions (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, xxx xxx xxx
(d) "continuing unlawful activity" means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 37 behalf of such, syndicate in respect of which more than one chargesheets have been field before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence;
(e) "organised crime" means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised 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 person or promoting insurgency;
(f) "organised crime syndicate" means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate of gang indulge inactivities of organised crime.
In view of the aforesaid definitions of "continuing unlawful activity", "organized crime" and "organized crime syndicate", it seems that in the present case the prosecution must prove that :
(i) that the accused persons were involved in continuing unlawful activities;
(ii) that they committed unlawful activities individually, singly or jointly;SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 37
(iii) that the activities committed by them either singly or jointly as member or on behalf of such organized crime syndicate;
(iv) that their unlawful activities involved use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or they committed such unlawful activities by any other unlawful means;
(v) that they committed the aforesaid unlawful activity(s) with an objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself / themselves or any other person or for promoting insurgency;
(vi) that the unlawful activity which the accused persons committed was prohibited by law for the time being in force;
(vii) that such an activity is cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more
(viii) that in respect of the unlawful activity(s) committed by the accused persons more than one chargesheet was filed before a competent court;
(ix) that the chargesheet was filed within a preceding period of ten years; and
(x) that the courts have taken cognizance of such offences.
11.1 It's one of the significant principle of constitutional law that the every individual accused has to be tried, acquitted or convicted as per due procedure established by law. In the present case as per provisions under Section 23 clause 1 of subclause (a) of MCOCA, the prosecution has to prove that:
"The information about the commission of organized SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 37 crime under MCOCA was recorded by a police officer with the prior approval of the police officer who was not below the rank of Dy. Inspector General of Police."
As per provisions under Section 23 clause 1 of subclause (b) of MCOCA, the prosecution has to prove that:
"The police officer who investigated the offence under the provisions of MCOCA was a police officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police."
As per provisions under Section 23 clause 2 subclause (a) of MCOCA, the prosecution has to prove that:
"The Special Court under MCOCA had taken the cognizance of the offence under MCOCA only after sanction was given to prosecute the accused persons by a police officer who was not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police."
11.2 The aspects of Jurisdiction is also highly significant in criminal trials and under MCOCA it has got a greater importance in view of the case law titled as "State Vs. Brijesh Singh @ Arun Kumar & Anr." CRL. A 358/14 decided on 16.04.2015 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, wherein it has been held in para no. 37 that: "the offences under Section 3 and 4 of the MCOCA are related to orgainsed crime or harbouring SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 37 wealth on behalf of orgainsed crime syndicate. The definition of organised crime and organized crimes syndicate under Sections 2(1) (e) and (f) of the MCOCA have a relation to the expression continuing unlawful activity under Section 2 (1) (d) thereof. As already observed, the requirement of two or more chargesheet and cognizance of offences in such cases is not fulfilled merely by bringing on record the details of cases filed anywhere, rather, the said charge sheet must relate to the jurisdiction of competent Court in Delhi."
11.3 Therefore, the prosecution is firstly duty bound to prove that approval for registration of FIR under MCOCA was properly given and sanction to prosecute the each accused was duly given as per established principles of law. Secondly, investigation was done by the competent officer. Thirdly, the accused persons were doing unlawful activities and committing organised crime in Delhi as defined under abovesaid provisions of MCOCA and operating their organised crime syndicate within the territorial limits of Delhi.
Firstly scrutinising the case from procedural aspects, it is observed that the case was investigated by the ACP who was not below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police but equivalent to him as per Schedule III of Delhi Police Act 1978. hence, it seems that the provision under Section 23 clause (1) SubClause (b) has been complied with by the prosecution.
SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 37The case was registered only after approval was received from the Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Cell Delhi who was not below in rank to Dy. Inspector General of Police as mentioned in Schedule III of Delhi Police Act 1978, hence, it seems that the provision under Section 23 clause (1) SubSection (a) has been procedurally complied with by the prosecution.
However, the procedure has to be complied with in its letter and spirit and not merely in a mechanical way as procedure is also prescribed to achieve some different fruitful objectives to subserve in a civilised society and is not merely a formality.
The PW 34 ACP Sanjeev Yadav had sent the proposal Ex. PW35/DA for taking approval for registration of the case against the accused persons under MCOCA. But, the proposal itself shows that it was not supported by any documentary proof for the perusal of Joint Commissioner of the Police Special Cell and suffers from multiple infirmities. For example before sending proposal for obtaining approval for registeration of the case under MCOCA
(i) ACP Sanjeev Yadav did not mention as to who had intercepted the mobile phone of accused Miraz Ahmad and Iftikar Ahmad.
(ii) He did not record the statements of Ashok Tebriwal.
(iii) He did not enquire whether Ashok Tebriwal made any complaint against extortion call.
(iv) He did not send "The recording" of intercepted SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 37 conversation between accused Miraz Ahmad and Iftikar Ahmad or its "transcript".
(v) The conversation between accused Miraz Ahmad and Iftikar Ahmad was intercepted on 16.09.2009 and on the basis of which, a case FIR No. 63/09 dated 25.10.2009 under Section 120B read with Section 387 IPC PS Special Cell, New Delhi was registered. The proposal seeking approval for registration of the case under MCOCA was written on 03.11.2009 by ACP Sanjeev Yadav. Therefore, the incriminating material collected during the period between 16.09.2009 or 25.10.2009 to 03.11.2009 against accused Prem Prakash Singh and members of his organised syndicate could be collected by ACP Sanjeev Kumar Yadav and sent to the Joint Commissioner of Police Special Cell for obtaining approval but he did not do so.
(vi) He wrote in the proposal that accused Prem Prakash eliminated those who refused to succumb to their demands. But, he did not annex the list of the persons and their particulars who were eliminated by the accused Prem Prakash Singh or members of his syndicate due to non compliance of their demands of extortions.
(vii) He wrote in the application that a cash rewards of Rs. 7 lacs was announced by the Government on the arrest of accused Prem Prakash Singh but he did not attach any document suggesting the aforesaid fact.
(viii) He stated in the proposal that the accused Prem Prakash Singh joined Mukhtar Ansari and started collecting protection money from coal dealers, contractors and affluent SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 37 businessmen etc. But, he did not mention name and particulars of any person from whom the protection money was collected by the accused Prem Prakash Singh and members of his syndicate.
(ix) He wrote in the proposal that accused Prem Prakash Singh killed Bhullan Singh, Ram Chander Singh, Sita Ram Chaurasia, Pradeep Pandey and Krishnanand Rai but he did not state in the proposal that these persons were killed by accused Prem Prakash Singh and members of his organised syndicate because they did not succumb to their demands of extortions.
(x) He mentioned in the proposal that the weapons to commit offences were provided by accused Mukhtar Ansari to accused Prem Prakash Singh but he did not annex any proof to show the same.
(xi) He wrote in the proposal that in the year 1998 accused Prem Prakash Singh was arrested for the first time on a joint operation of Delhi Police and STF, U.P in case FIR no. 686/98 dated 11.09.1998 under Section 186/353/332/307/34 IPC read with Section 27 of Arms Act PS Samay Pur Badli, Delhi but, the sections mentioned in the case clearly show that accused Prem Prakash Singh was not arrested for the offence of extortion in the aforementioned case.
(xii) He wrote in the proposal seeking approval that accused Prem Prakash Singh shifted to Mumbai through the contacts of accused Mukhtar Ansari but he did not annex any proof to show that accused Prem Prakash Singh was SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 37 having connections with the accused Mukhtar Ansari.
(xiii) He wrote in the proposal seeking approval that accused Prem Prakash Singh and his associates indulged in organized crime using threat and violence, intimidation and coercion for pecuniary benefits and acquired sophisticated weapons, vehicles and other logistics used in the commission of crimes. But, he did not annex any proof to show the same.
(xiv) He wrote in the proposal seeking approval that accused committed the organized crime singly and with his associates as syndicate or as a member of syndicate with the objectives of gaining pecuniary benefits for him and other members of the syndicate through violence, threats of violence, intimidation, using other unlawful means and due to these activities, syndicate accumulated huge amount of money by their continuing unlawful activities. But, no proof was annexed to show existence of such facts.
(xv) He wrote in the proposal seeking approval that the accused Prem Prakash Singh and his associates have used prohibited, illegal, automatic, assault rifles, pistol, revolver to commit crime. But, no proof was annexed to show existence of such facts.
(xvi) He wrote in the proposal seeking approval that the prerequisite of filing of more than one charge sheet before a competent Court against the accused Prem Prakash Singh and his associates within the period of last 10 years has been fulfilled and the Court has also taken cognizance on the same. But, the fact was that the court had not taken SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 37 the congnizance of requisite offence in any case within the territory of Delhi during said period.
It was primarily duty of the PW 34 ACP Sanjeev Yadav to substantiate his proposal seeking approval for registration of the case under MCOCA against the accused persons with sufficient incriminating material as proof. But, he did not annex any proof with his aforesaid proposal.
The testimony of PW 34 ACP Sanjeev Yadav on the aspect of approval for registration of the case under MCOCA shows that he did not state in his examination in chief that "any document" was annexed by him while sending the proposal to Joint Commissioner of Police; Special Cell for obtaining approval under section 23 (1) (a) of MCOCA for registration of the case against the accused persons. He made several admissions in his crossexamination:
(i) He admitted in his crossexamination that he never appeared personally before the Joint Commissioner of Police; Special Cell for obtaining the approval for registration of the case under MCOCA. He stated in his crossexamination that he had applied for obtaining the approval for registration of the case through the office of DCP. But, there is no document on judicial record which shows that the proposal was routed through the office of DCP.
(ii) He admitted in his crossexamination that he did not see certified copy of any case pending against accused Prem Prakash Singh before he sent the proposal to Joint C.P. for obtaining approval for registration of the case.SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 24 of 37
(iii) He admitted in his crossexamination that cognizance was not taken by the concerned court in FIR No. 63/09 u/s 387/120B IPC PS Special Cell on or before 03.11.2009. (iv) He admitted that date, time and place of offence was not specified by him in the Rukka and FIR Ex.PW1/A.
(v) He admitted that he was not having certified copy of any FIR, Charge Sheet or Order of cognizance taken by the competent court till 03.11.2009(on which date he moved proposal seeking approval for registration of the case.) in which accused Prem Prakash Singh and Mukhtar Ansari were shown as coaccused or Mukhtar Ansari was shown as associate of accused Prem Prakash Singh.
(vi) He admitted that no FIR was registered against the accused Mukhtar Ansari during the period of 01.01.1999 to 06.11.2009 within the NCT of Delhi/NCR.
(vii) He admitted that during the period of 07.11.2009 to 09.11.2009 no FIR was registered against the accused Mukhtar Ansari within NCT/NCR except the present case.
(viii) He admitted that accused Mukhtar Ansari and accused Prem Prakash Singh were never severally and jointly charge sheeted in any case except the present case within the jurisdiction of NCT of Delhi/NCR in the preceding 10 years since 03.11.2009.
(ix) He admitted that in approval letter Ex. PW15/A, FIR Ex. PW1/A and Rukka Ex.PW34/A, it is not mentioned that accused persons committed any offence or any FIR is registered against them within the NCT/NCR of Delhi.
SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 25 of 37The aforesaid admissions of PW34 ACP Sanjeev Yadav show that there was not enough incriminating material against the accused persons to make proposal and send it to Joint CP, Special Cell for taking approval for registration of the case under MCOCA. Therefore, the very founding stone on which prosecution built its case was very weak and brittle and the case of the prosecution suffered with incurable inherent defect at the very first step.
11.4 If ACP Sanjeev Yadav had failed in discharging his aforesaid primary obligation on the very first step it could have been cured by Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, Delhi on the second step as it was no less rather greater responsibility of PW 15 P.N. Aggarwal; Joint Commissioner of Police Special Cell to make necessary inquiries and see relevant record which could have substantiated the facts mentioned in the proposal and conveince himself that necessary ingredients of the offences under MCOCA are made out from the proposal and there exists sufficient incriminating material on record before granting approval for registration of the case under MCOCA against the accused persons and granting of approval for registration of case under MCOCA is justified.
The analysis of deposition of PW 15 P.N. Aggarwal; Joint Commissioner of Police Special Cell shows that he did not make any inquiries from ACP Sanjeev Yadav, or any officer from the office of DCP concerned and did not ask for any record. He made many admissions in this regard in his deposition :
(i) He admitted during his crossexamination that it was not in his knowledge before 07.11.2009 that there exists SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 26 of 37 any syndicate of the accused persons in the records of Delhi police.
(ii) He admitted that it was not in his knowledge at the time of granting approval that accused Iftikar Ahmad and Miraz Ahmad were involved in any criminal case in Delhi or not.
(iii) He admitted that it was not mentioned against the names of accused Iftikar Ahmad and Miraz Ahmad that they accumulated any movable or immovable property in their name.
(iv) He admitted that names of accused persons Iftikar Ahmad and Miraz Ahmad as associates of accused Prem Prakash Singh were not mentioned in the proposal.
(v) He admitted that name of accused Prem Prakash Singh was not mentioned in the approval order Ex.
PW15/A. He stated that as case FIR No.686/98 PS Samay Pur Badli was registered against the accused Prem Prakash Singh but admitted that in the year 1998, MCOCA was not implemented in Delhi.
(vi) He admitted that other than FIR No. 63/09 U/s 120B r/w Section 387 IPC PS Special Cell there was no case in proposal showing involvements of all the four accused persons together in one case. He admitted that accused Mukhtar Ansari was not named in FIR 63/09, U/s 120B r/w Section 387 IPC, PS Special Cell.
(vii) He admitted that proposal for approval was put before him on 07.11.2009 and on the same day he accorded the approval.
SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 27 of 37Therefore, it is crystal clear from a perusal of judicial record that the approval for registration of the case was granted by PW15 P.N. Aggarwal, the then Joint Commissioner of Police in a mechanical way without applying his mind to the facts mentioned in the proposal, without perusal of any record, without making any enquiry and without satisfying himself that the ingredients of offences under MCOCA exists from the facts mentioned in the proposal or not and without satisfying himself that there is sufficient incrimination material primafacie on record to accord approval for resigstration of the case under MCOCA against the accused persons. Therefore, it can be safely inferred from the facts and circumstances mentioned above that prosecution has failed to comply with the provisions under Section 23 clause 1 of subclause (a) of MCOCA and the approval for registration of FIR against the accused person under MCOCA was not proper and just and it is writ large that the prosecution has failed to discharge its obligation on the second important step also.
11.5 The third equally relevant and important point in this case is the compliance of provisions under Section 23 (2) of MCOCA and to see whether PW 15 P.N. Aggarwal, Joint Commissioner of Police; Special Cell rightly and justifiably granted sanction to prosecute the accused persons under the relevant provisions of MCOCA or not. He made following admission in this regard in his crossexamination:
(i) The testimony of PW15 P.N. Aggarwal, Special Commissioner of Police; Special Cell on this point shows that he admitted that names of accused Mukhtar Ansari, Afzal Ansari and AttaurRehman were not mentioned in SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 28 of 37 the first sanction order Ex. PW 15/B.
(ii) He admitted that no draft charge sheet was placed before him for according sanction for prosecution.
(iii) He has admitted that in Sanction Order Ex.PW15/B he concluded that the accused Prem Prakash Singh, Iftikar Ahmed and Miraz Ahmed were the members of Organized Crime Syndicate. It was not mentioned that accused Prem Prakash Singh was leader of the syndicate.
(iv) He admitted that specific name of the syndicate and the person running the said syndicate was not mentioned in Sanction Order Ex.PW15/B.
(v) He admitted that in the Sanction order list of involvements and list of the property were not mentioned but stated that the list of the involvements and the details of the property were before him for granting sanction.
However, he did not point out in his deposition which record was produced before him before passing of Sanction Order Ex.PW15/B and he did not exhibit any such record while leading evidence.
(vi) He admitted that the specific details about nature of continuing unlawful activities qua accused Prem Prakash Singh, Iftikar Ahmed and Miraz Ahmed were not mentioned in the Sanction Order Ex.PW15/B.
(vii) He admitted that in Sanction Order Ex.PW15/C (sanction order against accused Mukhtar Ansari), he concluded that accused Prem Prakash Singh, Iftikar Ahmad and Miraz Ahmed were the members of Organized Crime Syndicate and it was not mentioned in the said Sanction SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 29 of 37 Order that accused Prem Prakash Singh was the leader of the said syndicate.
(viii) He admitted that the specific name of the syndicate and the person running the said syndicate was not mentioned in the Sanction Order Ex.PW15/C.
(ix) He admitted that in the Sanction Order Ex.PW15/C, list of involvements and the details of the property of accused Mukhtar Ansari were not mentioned. The record of involvements and details of property of accused Mukhtar Ansari were brought to his notice before he accorded sanction vide Saction Order Ex.PW15/C but he did not point out or exhibit those details against accused Mukhtar Ansari in his deposition.
(x) He admitted that he had not mentioned the specific SubSection of Section 3 of MCOCA under which he accorded sanction to prosecute against all the accused persons.
(xi) He admitted that the specific details about the nature of continuing unlawful activities of the accused persons were not mentioned in the afore exhibited Sanction Orders.
(xii) He admitted that there was no FIR against accused Mukhtar Ansari within the NCT of Delhi during the period 08.11.1999 to 07.11.2009.
(xiii) He admitted that there was no FIR showing involvement of all the four accused persons together in the NCT of Delhi.
(xiv) He admitted that he did not examine any SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 30 of 37 witness personally.
Therefore, it is apparent on judicial record that PW 15 P.N. Aggarwal, Joint Commissioner of Police (Retired), Special Cell did not apply his mind and granted sanction under Section 23 (2) of MCOCA against the accused persons in a mechanical way and hence the prosecution failed at his third most important step to rightfully built the case against the accused persons under MCOCA.
11.6 In view of the aforesaid cited case law titled as "State Vs. Brijesh Singh & Anr." (supra), the prosecution is under legal obligation to prove that two or more chargesheets were filed against the accused persons and the Court had taken the cognizance. The aforesaid condition is not fulfilled merely by bringing on record the details of cases filed anywhere, rather the prosecution must show from the judicial record that chargesheets were related to the jurisdiction of the competent Court in Delhi.
The prosecution has not shown from the judicial record that more than one chargesheet was filed against the accused persons in Delhi and the cognizance was taken by the competent Court in Delhi in those chargesheets. It is significant that the competent Court in Delhi had not taken the cognizance of the offences even in case FIR no. 63/09 U/s 120B r/w Section 387 IPC PS Special Cell, on 03.11.2009 on which date proposal for registration of the case under MCOCA was moved by PW34 ACP Sanjeev Yadav and even on 07.11.2009 on which date PW15 P. N Aggarwal, the then Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Cell granted approval for the registration of the case under MCOCA against the SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 31 of 37 accused persons. Therefore, it is apparent on the face of the judicial record that the prosecution has utterly failed to show that the accused persons were doing continuing unlawful activities defined under Section 2(d) and had committed the organized crime under Section 2(e) or operating organized crime syndicate under 2(f) under MCOCA within the jurisdiction of Delhi. Hence, the prosecution has failed on the fourth important legal aspect to prove the case against the accused persons.
11.7 To prove substantive offences, the prosecution was under legal obligation, to prove that the accused persons were involved in continuing unlawful activities, they committed organized crime and they were having organized crime syndicate as defined under Section 2(d), (e) and (f) of MCOCA.
It is most momentous to note that as the prosecution has already failed to prove the fact that more than one chargesheet was filed against the accused persons in Delhi in a case in which the offences were punishable with three years or more and the competent Court in Delhi had taken the cognizance of the offences in said chargesheets and they were committed within 10 years preceding to the date of offence in the present case. Therefore, now it has been established that the prosecution cannot prove the ingredients of the aforesaid substantive offences against which the accused persons have been charged with in the present case.
However, even otherwise on merits, leaving aside the legal point of jurisdiction, the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid ingredients of the offences against the accused persons. The deposition of SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 32 of 37 PW35 ACP Bhisham Singh clearly displays that he admitted following facts which shows that ingredients of offences have not been proved :
(i) PW35 ACP Bhisham Singh admitted in his cross examination with regard to the accused Miraz Ahmed that he never visited the school of Afreen and Master Meenaz Khan, both the children of accused Miraz Ahmed to verify the school record of fees etc. which was sent by School Staff to Special Cell. He had not recorded the statement of any school staff regarding authenticity of the receipts.
(ii) He admitted that accused Miraz Ahmed was having a truck and a mini bus in his name and one vehicle was in the name of his mother Khatban Nisha.
(iii) He admitted that all these three vehicles are commercial in nature and accused Miraz Ahmed was plying the same for his business.
(iv) He admitted that accused Miraz Ahmed was also having an agricultural land in his native village and he might be getting some income from the said agricultural land.
(v) He admitted that father of the accused Miraz Ahmed was in UP Police.
(vi) He admitted that accused Miraz Ahmed was not a coaccused with accused Prem Prakash Singh, Iftikar Ahmed and Mukhtar Ansari in any case in UP.
(vii) He admitted that accused Miraz Ahmed has already been acquitted in case FIR no.63/2009, U/s 120B r/w Section 387 IPC.
(viii) He admitted that he cannot tell if accused Miraz SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 33 of 37 Ahmed got any economical gain from the cases in which he is allegedly involved as per the chargesheet.
(ix) He admitted that Ex. PW35/DA is the proposal sent by ACP Sanjeev Yadav to the then Joint CP for obtaining approval for registration of the FIR of the present case.
(x) He admitted that Ex.PW15/A (the approval order for registration of the case) was passed by the then Joint CP on the basis of Ex.PW35/DA.
(xi) He admitted that he had filed chargesheet against accused Prem Prakash Singh, Iftikar Ahmed and Miraz Ahmed on 27.04.2010 but he did not file or relied upon the document Ex.PW35/DA along with the aforesaid charge sheet.
(xii) He admitted that he had filed the supplementary chargesheet against accused Mukhtar Ansari on 03.11.2010 but the document Ex.PW35/DA was not filed.
(xiii) He admitted that there was no reference to the document Ex.PW35/DA in the list of the documents in both the aforesaid chargesheets.
(xiv) He admitted that FIR Ex.PW1/A was registered on the basis of Ex.PW34/A (rukka) and the rukka Ex.PW34/A was prepared on the basis of the order passed by the then Joint CP on 07.11.2009 i.e. Ex.PW15/A.
(xv) He admitted that FIR No. 57/2002 U/s 307/302/506/120B IPC, 3(i) UP Gangsters Act, PS Dashwamedh, Varanasi, UP; FIR no.111/2002 U/s 302/120 B IPC PS Chaitganj, Varanasi, UP ; FIR no. 589/2005 U/s SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 34 of 37 147/148/149/302/307/404/120B IPC, 25 Arms Act and 7 CLA Act, PS Bhanwarkole, Ghazipur, UP were mentioned in Ex.PW15/A. (xvi) He admitted that MCOCA is applicable in NCT of Delhi and PS Bhanwarkole, Ghazipur UP, PS Chaitganj, Varanasi, UP and PS Daswamedh, Varanasi, UP do not fall under the territory of NCT of Delhi / NCR.
(xvii) He admitted that name of the accused Mukhtar Ansari was not mentioned in Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW15/B. (xviii) He admitted that in Ex.PW15/A and Ex. PW 15/B name of the accused Prem Prakash Singh was not mentioned as the leader of the syndicate being run by him in the NCT of Delhi.
(xix) He admitted that the total 17 cases of accused Prem Prakash Singh were mentioned in the document Mark "A" and only cases mentioned at serial no.12 and 17 were allegedly committed within the territory of NCT but it is also correct that the FIR mentioned at serial no.12 was not registered within the preceding of ten years from the date of registration of the present FIR.
(xx) He admitted that accused Prem Prakash, Mahender Ayare, Miraz Ahmed and Iftikar Ahmed were acquitted on 23.01.2012 in the case FIR no.63/2009 U/s 120 B r/w Section 387 IPC, PS Special Cell. He admitted that accused Mukhtar Ansari was not named in that case.
(xxi) He admitted that not even a single FIR was mentioned by the then Joint CP while passing sanction order Ex.PW15/B on 26.04.2010. He admitted that he had not filed SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 35 of 37 the copy of the application, approval, proposal and proposed draft charge sheet alongwith the charge sheet dated 03.11.2009.
(xxii) He admitted that the cases mentioned at serial no.12, 13 and 35 were not registered within the NCT of Delhi.
(xxiii) He admitted that it is nowhere mentioned that accused Mukhtar Ansari was the member of the organised crime syndicate which is being run by the accused Prem Prakash Singh.
(xxiv) He admitted that he had not obtained the certified copy of the cognizance taken by the then CMM in FIR No. 63/09 u/S 387/120B IPC PS Special cell during investigation of the present case.
(xxv) He admitted that he did not obtained the certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act with the Ex. PW 15/A, Ex. PW15/B and Ex. PW15/C from the then Joint CP.
(xxvi) He admitted that no FIR was registered against the accused Mukhtar Ansari in NCT of Delhi/ NCR during the period of 01.09.1999 to 06.11.2009. He further admitted that even after 06.11.2009 no FIR has been registered against accused Mukhtar Ansari in NCT of Delhi/NCR except the present FIR.
(xxvii) He admitted the accused Mukhtar Ansari, Prem Prakash Singh, Iftikar Ahmad and Miraz Ahmad were not charge sheeted commonly or jointly in any FIR within the territory of NCT of Delhi/NCR.
SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 36 of 37(xxviii) He admitted that nothing has come on record that accused Mukhtar Ansari accumulated any moveable or immoveable property.
12. In last it is inescapable conclusion that the accused persons have not committed any offence under MCOCA within the jurisdiction of territory of Delhi. The proposal for seeking approval for registration of the case under MCOCA was not proper. The approval and sanction granted for registration of the case and prosecution under MCOCA was not just and proper. The ingredients of the offences for which the accused persons have been charged have not been proved by the evidence led by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
13. Therefore, all the accused persons are acquitted forthwith. They be released from custody immediately, if they are not required in any other case. Their bail bonds, surety bonds except bail bonds given under Section 437A Cr. P. C be cancelled and their respective sureties be discharged. The documents of the sureties furnished at the time of furnishing bail bonds except bail bonds under Section 437A Cr. P. C be return back to the respective sureties after cancellation of the endorsement, if any, as per rules.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN CHANDRA SHEKHAR
th
COURT ON 04 of February, 2016 ASJ02 (Central)/THC/Delhi
SC No. 7/14, FIR No. 66/09, State Vs. Prem Prakash Singh & Ors. Page 37 of 37