Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[email protected] 5] According to the prosecution, during the course of investigation of the said crime, it was revealed that the accused therein were members of Organized syndicate led by accused No.26 against whom there are various offences of dacoity, extortion, betting etc. The Investigating Officer, therefore, submitted a proposal for invoking the offences under the MCOC Act to competent authority under Section 23(1)(a) of the said Act. After grant of approval by the competent authority on 10.4.2019, the offences under the MCOC Act came to be added in the crime.

14] Though the gambling by itself may not be an organized crime, however, an organized crime syndicate may take recourse to it as one of it profit making venture. It may earn some profit or benefit out of it to support its other activities. It may indulge in contract killing, abduction or dacoity or other similar offences along with gambling business. If the existence of an organized crime syndicate comes to the knowledge of State for the first time while conducting raid on a gambling establishment and the investigation shows previous two or more charge-sheets for cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment of three or more years, the police may take recourse to the MCOC Act and complete the investigation. The MCOC Court may after trial punish accused only for being a member of or for abetting if it finds that there is no proof of actual participation. Section 3 itself shows the possibility of such punishment though there may be acquittal of charge under section 3 (i) or (ii) is concerned.

Continuous unlawful activity contemplates commission of cognizable offence and therefore, if at all there is a commission of cognizable offence along with other ingredients, then it is a continuous unlawful activity may amount to organized crime and the person who is involved in such commission of offence and if at all he is a member of the organized crime syndicate, he can be punished under section 3(4) of the MCOC Act. These all definitions are circular and interlinking with each other and therefore, a prosecution simplictor under section 3(4) of the MCOC Act though is available in the Act, is practically not possible. A member of syndicate may commit cognizable offence jointly, then section [email protected] 3(4) can be invoked for the offence and he can be chargesheeted accordingly. However, if cognizable offence is not committed and though he is known as a member of organized crime syndicate, cannot be prosecuted and charge-sheeted for being a member of organized crime alone. Though there is penal provision yet due to circular definitions of the terms under sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the Act, a member of a gang practically cannot be prosecuted under section 3(4) of the Act simplicitor.

17] We need not deal with this judgment at length in this matter since the prosecution here has alleged that the petitioners before us have assisted accused No.26 actively by accepting the money and risk in gambling business. If the case of the prosecution is accepted, the organized crime syndicate of accused No.26 against whom invocation of the MCOC Act is not in dispute, would not have succeeded in gambling activity or business in absence of the helping hand of the petitioners. The express language employed in the [email protected] interpretation clause reveals non-use of concept of organized crime insofar as such member is concerned. The legislature has defined abetment in wide language and thereafter also added "being a member" as an independent crime and made it punishable under Section 3(4). Observations by learned Single Judge show that in the said matter there was no evidence of conspiracy and no charge under Section 120-B of IPC and the applicants were not attributed any active or even passive role. Facts of matter before us show that the State has invoked Section 120-B of IPC so also Sections 3 (4) of MCOC Act.