Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

AJN Prior approval to apply provisions of the MCOC Act was accorded by the Joint Commissioner of Police on 18/12/2006 and thereafter the provisions of the MCOC Act were applied to the case on 18/12/2006. The appellant was arrested on 29/12/2006.

AJN

31. Mr. Desai then submitted that since against the appellant only one charge-sheet is filed, he is not covered by Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOC Act which defines "continuing unlawful activity". Consequently, the appellant cannot be tried for offences under the MCOC Act.

This is clear from the submissions made on behalf of the State and recorded particularly in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the Judgment. In paragraph 54 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court clearly stated that from the AJN submissions made on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, it appears that the main question for determination related to the applicability of the MCOC Act to offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 having particular regard to the enactment of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981. The High Court had proceeded on the basis that offences punishable under igthe provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 committed during the period when the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 was in force, could not be said to be offences which could be considered for the purpose of continuing unlawful activity as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOC Act. On consideration of provisions of both the Acts, the Supreme Court rejected this contention. The Supreme Court then considered individual cases. The Supreme Court observed that so far as Lalit Nagpal and Anil Nagpal are concerned, their involvement was shown in several cases of similar nature. However, so far as Kapil Nagpal was concerned, his involvement was shown only in respect of C.R. No.25 AJN of 2003 of the Rasayani Police Station under Sections 468, 420, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3, 7, 9 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act. However, permission to register offence under Section 1(ii) of the MCOCA was taken only in respect of an offence under Section 63 of the Sales Tax Act. The Supreme Court observed that Section 63 of the Sales Tax Act would not attract the provisions of the MCOC Act. Kapil Nagpal was thus not linked to the organized crime syndicate. The nexus was lacking. It is in this context that the Supreme Court observed that so far as Kapil Nagpal is concerned, he has not been shown to be involved in any continuing unlawful activity. The attempt was to apply the MCOCA to a person who had no nexus with the organized crime syndicate. The Supreme Court therefore observed that the provisions of the MCOCA have to be strictly interpreted and the concerned authorities would have to be bound down to strict observance of the said provisions.

Requirement of more than one charge-sheet is qua the unlawful activities of the organized crime syndicate and not qua individual member thereof.

45. Mr. Desai's submission that inasmuch as the appellant's name is not mentioned in the approval granted under Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act, the prosecution qua the appellant is vitiated, must also be rejected. In its judgment in Vinod Asrani v. State of Maharashtra (Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.6312 of 2006 dated 21/2/2007, the Supreme Court has considered the same submission and observed that non inclusion of the accused in the approval under Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act is not fatal to the investigation AJN qua that accused. The Supreme Court observed that Section 23(1)(a) provides a safeguard that no investigation into an offence under the MCOC Act should be commenced without the approval of the concerned authorities. Once such approval is obtained, an investigation is commenced. The Supreme Court further observed that those who are subsequently found to be involved in the commission of the organized crime can very well be proceeded against once sanction is obtained against them under Section 23(2) of the MCOC Act.