Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

order, the learned Special Judge has dismissed the application Exh.28 filed by the appellant/accused for discharge from the offence u/s 3 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ('MCOC Act' for short).

3. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated thus :

(f) of the MCOC Act are attracted. It is submitted that in the absence of the said requirement which is very basis of the charge of indulging into organised crime by or on behalf of organised crime syndicate cannot be sustained.

9. Learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Ranjit Singh Sharma .vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2277 in order to submit that the expression 'any unlawful means' as referred to u/s 2 (1) (e) of the MCOC Act cannot be widely construed as including any or other unlawful means.

(f) "Special Court" means the Special court constituted under section 5."

20. The provisions of Section 2 (e) of the MCOC Act in particular fell for consideration of full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra...Versus...Jagan Gagansingh Nepali @ Jagya and another, reported in 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2961. The reference to the larger Bench arose on account of difference of opinion between two Division Benches of this Court. The Division Bench in the case of Ganesh Nivrutti Marne...Versus...State of Maharashtra, reported in 2010 (2) Bom. C.R. (Cri) 586 had taken a view that the term "other advantage" as per Section 2 (e) of the MCOC Act, cannot be read 'ejusdem generis', with 'pecuniary benefits' and 'undue economic advantage'.

with co-accused, but mere fact that he has committed present offence with newly enrolled members would not relieve him from the rigor of MCOC Act. Even if a person commits crime singly as a member of the gang or on behalf of the gang he is liable under the Act. If he commits offence through or with the assistance of newly enrolled member/s, still he and newly enrolled members are liable under the Act. There is no escape for him only because he has changed members for commission of crimes. He will not loose his character as a member of the gang. Similarity of more than two members for commission of unlawful activities is not the requirement of the Act. If that is the requirement, then the gang leader may go on changing members for commission of each offence so as to defeat the provisions MCOC Act. In order to curb this mischief or ill design of gang members the legislature in its wisdom defined the terms, "Organised Crime Syndicate", "Organised Crime", "Continuing unlawful activities" by employing the words "acting either singly or collectively, "either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate", "such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed" etc. In the present case, existence of organised crime syndicate and membership of accused Dallu Sardar is evident from the fact that he had committed such offences with other accused which MCOC Act seeks to prevent."