Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

[email protected] 2] As challenge in all these petitions is common, they are being decided by this common order.

3] It is the case of the prosecution that on 8.4.2019 pursuant to secret information, Assistant Supdt. of Police of Karvir Police Station of Kolhapur along with other police personnel raided the Matka (Gambling) Den of Salim Yashin Mulla (accused No.26). It is alleged that while recording of the panchanama of incriminating articles which were found during the raid was going on, the wife of accused No.26 namely Shama Salim Mulla (accused No.1) came there with other co-accused and they assaulted the raiding party. 4] Initially, on the basis of complaint lodged by one of the members of the raiding party with Rajarampuri Police Station, Kolhapur, the said police station registered the crime vide crime No.136 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 395, 143, 147, 349, 353, 332, 109, 324, 427, of IPC, Section 4 and 5 of Maharashtra Gambling Act, Section 37 read with 135 of Police Act and Section 65(e) of Maharashtra Prohibition Act.

6] It is alleged that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that accused No.26 used to transfer money received by him from Matka business to accused No.30 Rakesh Agrawal (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3775 of 2019) and accused No.42 Manish Agarwal (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2899 of 2019), in certain contingencies i.e if he perceived that he would not be able to repay the amount in the event particular number on which maximum amount was betted and accepted by him declared to be winning number. Thus, accused No.30 and 42 used to accept that risk and discharge [email protected] the obligation to pay if said number turn out to be winning one. It is alleged that in a similar circumstances, accused Nos.30 and 42 used to transfer risk and money received by them from persons like accused No.26 to accused No.43 Samrat Korane (petitioner in Writ Petition No.5461 of 2019). Suffice it to say that the petitioners before us are roped in the present crime to be members of organized crime syndicate led by accused No.26 on the basis of their complicity in Matka activity of accused No.26.

12] We have perused the said statements and confessions. The fact that the petitioners were not present at the time of incident dated 8.4.2019 is not in dispute. The statement of witness Sanjay Adsule referred to by learned Spl.P.P. shows that accused No. 32 Ankush Waghre was working with accused No. 30 Rakesh Agrawal and accused No.42. A confession of accused No.32 Ankush Waghre came to be recorded during the course of investigation and it shows that accused No.26 Salim Mulla used to transfer money received [email protected] by him from Matka business to accused Nos. 30 and 42 in certain contingencies as stated supra. Suffice it to say that the statement of witnesses and confessions of some of the petitioners referred to by learned Spl.P.P. are on a similar terms.

13] The question is, therefore, can the petitioners on the basis of above materials be said to be members of organized crime syndicate led by accused No. 26 ? The contention of the petitioners is that on the basis of the material collected by the prosecution, the petitioners, at the most, can be said to have committed the offences under the Gambling Act. It is submitted that maximum punishment for the offences under Gambling Act is two years. It is submitted that competent au- thority under Section 23(a), therefore, while granting approval for invocation of the offences under the MCOC Act against the organized crime syndicate led by accused No.26, considered the I.P.C. offences only. It is submitted that the sanctioning au- thority under section 23(2), therefore, ought not to have granted sanction to prosecute the present petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot be roped in the present [email protected] crime as members of organized crime syndicate led by ac- cused No. 26, on the basis of their alleged complicity in his Matka business.