Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2(e) "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

9. Continuing unlawful activity is defined in Clause (d) of Section 2 of MCOCA as under:

2(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 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

10. Organized crime syndicate is defined under Section 2(f) of MCOCA as under:

21. One of the important points raised by the petitioners is that the FIRs and the charge-sheets recorded against the petitioners prior to the coming into operation of this Act of MCOCA in Delhi cannot be considered as the law has only prospective effect. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the offences committed prior to 2nd January, 2002 could not be termed as organized crime and the petitioners could not have been termed as organized crime syndicate because at that time the Act was not in force and the offence of the petitioners, if any, could not be either "organized crime" or "continuing unlawful activity". In case the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners has to be accepted the first case under this Act can be registered only after two cases of the nature described in the Act had been registered against a person or against an organized crime syndicate after 2nd January, 2002. As the definition shows for making a crime punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of MCOCA, there has to be more than one case registered or in other words it is the third case which can be registered for an offence under Sections 3 & 4 of MCOCA. Such an interpretation will come directly in conflict with the very purpose of the Act. The object of the Act as stated in the extended title of the Act is, "The Act to make special provisions for prevention and control of and for coping with criminal activity by organized crime syndicate or gang and for matters connected with and incidental thereto." If such an interpretation is accepted then the state will have to wait and helplessly watch organized crime taking place till it is the third time a person or a syndicate is found involved in the offence after the Act came into operation in Delhi. It is further to be noticed that "continuing unlawful activity" could have taken place ten years prior to the registration of the new case. Obviously the intention of the legislature could not have been other than giving immediate effect to the Act by taking note of all the offences or charge-sheets registered within ten years prior to the commencement of the Act.

29. The petitioners allege that there is no continuity in the unlawful activity. There is a long gap between the present case and the previous cases registered against them. This argument cannot be accepted in view of the definition of the term "continuing unlawful activity". What is required is more than one case in the preceding period of ten years. Thus if there are two cases in 1996, MCOCA can be invoked in the year 2006. This definition does not require the prosecution to prove that the unlawful activity has continued from day to day. In fact what the prosecution is required to show is not his unlawful acts or offences but that more than one charge-sheets have been filed against the petitioners in the last ten years. The continuing unlawful activity is made out from the above sequence of cases. Apart from the FIR registered in 1995, 1996, 1998 for heinous offences like murder he was also arrested for offence under Section 25 of Arms Act in 2001 and was found involved in a case of fraud in the year 2003. The present case was registered in 2005.