Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The appellants were acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,1999 (for short "MCOC Act").

2. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the appellants of the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, appellant-State of Maharashtra has preferred Appeal No.496 of 2014. The brief facts giving rise to both the appeals are as under:

3. Victim Mohan Krishnarao Gunjal (P.W.No.4) was residing at Panchavati, Pashan, Pune along with his wife Vandana (the informant) and daughter Priya (P.W.No.2). Mohan Gunjal was carrying on business of construction of dams. He retired from his business. He had three cars viz.Mercedes, Lancer and Maruti Zen. Mr.Bhimrao Lone (P.W.No.5) was working as a driver with Mohan Gunjal since last 7 years of the date of incident. Mohan Gunjal had a weak eyesight. He used to visit Panshop at Kamla Nehru Park, Pune at 7.30 p.m. everyday in his Mercedes car with Bhimrao.

11. During the course of investigation, PI Aagashe came to the conclusion that appellants have committed offence punishable under the MCOC Act. Hence, he submitted a proposal (Exh.230) under section 23(1) of the MCOC Act to the competent authority. DIG, Crime Branch, Pune granted approval to take action against the appellants and other accused persons. Thereafter, investigation was conducted by ACP Sanjay Jadhav (P.W.No.27). ACP Jadhav addressed a letter to Airtel for getting the CDRs of mobile nos.9860929056 and 9890895617. Accordingly, he received CDRs on 27 th February 2006. Appellant No.6 was arrested on 10th March 2006 by Badlapur Police Station in an separate offence under the Arms Act. He was later on transferred in the instant case. Investigating Officer obtained voice sample of the appellants and others and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory at Chandigardh along with seized audio cassettes. On completion of investigation, ACP Jadhav sought sanction for prosecuting the appellants and other accused persons under the MCOC Act. Accordingly, sanction was granted by Competent Authority. Thereafter, charge sheet came to be filed against the appellants and other accused persons.

14. On going through the evidence on record, the Trial Court held that the appellants kidnapped Mohan for ransom by threatening to cause his death. Thus, they have been held guilty. It was held that prosecution has failed to prove charge under MCOC Act. Hence, both the appeals came to be filed.

15. Heard Mr.Khamkar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Yagnik, learned APP for State. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated evidence of informant, her daughter Priyanka, victim Mohan Gunjal and Bhimrao in proper prospective. The victim has not attended the test identification parade. On the other hand, learned APP submits that there was material on record but the trial Court has not considered the evidence led in the case and wrongly acquitted the appellants of the offence punishable under sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act.

43. Necessary ingredient involved is that more than one charge sheet have not been filed before the competent Court in respect of offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more either singly or jointly as member of syndicate. Accused Nos.3 to 7 are acquitted of the charge under sections 364-A, 120(B) of IPC. It is also not proved on record that Accused Nos.3 to 7 were facing more than one charge sheet prior to the offence in question. It is not proved on record that Court had taken cognizance of any offence against the appellants having punishment for more than three years. Therefore, there is nothing to connect the appellants with their previous criminal activities. Thus, act of continuing unlawful activity by the appellants is missing. There was no commission of organized crime under section 2(1)(d) by the appellants. There is no evidence on record to establish that the appellants had committed offence punishable under sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act.