Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

1. The Respondents were discharged by the Special Judge MCOCA, New Delhi District, Patiala House, New Delhi in S.C. No.139 of 2013 dated 5th February, 2014 pertaining to offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MCOCA’). The Appellant- State of NCT of Delhi filed an appeal under Section 12 of MCOCA before the High Court of Criminal Appeal @SLP(Crl.) No.5497 of 2015 Delhi which was dismissed on 16 th April, 2015. Aggrieved, the Appellant-State has approached this Court by filing the above Appeal.

2. FIR No. 10 of 2013 was registered in the Special Cell (SB) PS Special Cell (SB) on 5th March, 2013 on the basis of information received from Shri S.K. Giri, Assistant Commissioner of Police (the ACP for short). The ACP prepared a proposal for registration and investigation of a case under Sections 3/4 of MCOCA. According to the proposal, the first Respondent who was arrested in connection with the FIR No.69 dated 8 th October, 2007 under Sections 384, 387, 417, 419, 471, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (the ‘IPC’ for short), registered in P.S., Special Cell, New Delhi, was also involved in 20 cases of attempt to murder, murder, extortion, rioting, cheating, forgery and for offences under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the UP Gangsters Act’). Respondent No.1 was involved in committing unlawful activities along with other members of a crime syndicate since 1985 in an organized manner. The Criminal Appeal @SLP(Crl.) No.5497 of 2015 particulars of eight crimes, the cognizance of which was taken by the competent criminal Courts in and outside Delhi were referred to. It was also mentioned that Respondents manipulated a fake identity for themselves and have floated several companies from the ill-gotten wealth. Several properties were acquired by these companies, the details of which have been specified in the proposal. Considering the magnitude of the criminal activities of the Respondents and their organised crime syndicate, the informant felt that it was necessary to invoke the stringent provisions of MCOCA. The particulars of 14 members of the syndicate was given in the proposal and approval was sought for conducting a thorough investigation into the role of each of them for offences under Section 3 and 4 of MCOCA.

9. Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 urged that MCOCA is a special legislation which deals with organized crime and unless the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 3 and 4 are made out, a case under the said statute cannot be registered. He submitted that MCOCA operates only within the territorial limits of National Capital Territory of Delhi. He submitted that there is no offence of organized crime which was committed within the territory of Delhi. He also argued that it is clear from the material on record that there is no property belonging to the Respondents within the territory of Delhi and hence, Section 4 of MCOCA is not attracted. He also argued that crime is local and anything that is done outside the State cannot be subject matter of consideration for registration of an offence under MCOCA. Reliance was placed on Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution of India to submit that MCOCA which extended to the National Capital Criminal Appeal @SLP(Crl.) No.5497 of 2015 Territory of Delhi cannot have extra territorial operation. He relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in The State of Bombay v. Narayandas Mangilal Dayame1 in support of the said submissions. Mr. Lalit argued that the complainant in FIR No.69 of 2007, Sudhir Singh, is a resident of Varanasi and according to him, he came to Delhi on a business trip and was threatened over phone by the Respondents. After investigating into the said offence, it was found that a call was made from a public telephone booth at Varanasi, U.P. All the antecedent events that were mentioned in the said FIR pertain to activities in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He submitted that no organised crime was committed in Delhi and FIR No.69 of 2007 cannot be taken into consideration for proceeding against the Respondents under MCOCA. Referring to FIR No.122 of 2010, Mr. Lalit submitted that Section 506 IPC was a non-cognizable offence at the relevant time. As there was no cognizable offence, FIR No.122 of 2010 is of no use for proceeding against the Respondents under MCOCA.

26. Organised crime is not an activity restricted to a particular State which is apparent from a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons. A restrictive reading of the words Criminal Appeal @SLP(Crl.) No.5497 of 2015 “competent Court” appearing in Section 2 (1)(d) of MCOCA will stultify the object of the Act. We disagree with the learned senior counsel for the Respondents that it is impermissible for the Special Courts to take into account charge sheets filed outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi as that would result in giving extra territorial operation to MCOCA. A perusal of the charge sheets filed against the Respondents in the State of Uttar Pradesh which are relied upon by the prosecution to prove that organised crime was being committed by them shows clear nexus between those charge sheets and the National Capital Territory of Delhi where prosecution was launched under MCOCA. The twin conditions to establish territorial nexus in RMD Chamarbaugwala’s case (supra) are fulfilled. If members of an organised crime syndicate indulge in continuing unlawful activity across the country, it cannot by any stretch of imagination said, that there is no nexus between the charge sheets filed in Courts in States other than Delhi and the offence under MCOCA registered in Delhi. In such view, we are unable to accept the submission of the Respondents that charge sheets filed in competent Courts in the State of Criminal Appeal @SLP(Crl.) No.5497 of 2015 Uttar Pradesh should be excluded from consideration. We hold that ‘competent Courts’ in the definition of ‘continuing unlawful activity’ is not restricted to Courts in Delhi alone. CRIME IS LOCAL