Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: mcoc act in Maruti Navnath Sonawane vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 May, 2022Matching Fragments
3. On 11.05.2019, Respondent applied for approval to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai under the provisions of Section 23(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 ('MCOC Act') for invoking the provisions of the said Act against the Appellant and other accused in C.R. No. 70 of 2019.
4. On 06.07.2019, the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai accepted the approval and granted sanction thereby invoking the provisions of Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act in C.R. No.70 of 2019 against the Appellant and other co-accused.
(xii) that two charge-sheets filed against Ayub Chikna, viz., (a) C.R. No. 107 of 11 under Section 341, 392, 34 of IPC read with Section 3, 4, 25 Arms Act read with Section 37(1), 134 Maharashtra Police Act read with 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) MCOC Act and (b) C.R. No. 100 of 2009 under Section 292, 397, 34 of IPC read with Section 3, 25 of the Arms Act, are relied upon by the prosecution to indict the Appellant with MCOC proceedings; however Ayub Shaikh has been acquitted in C.R.No. 100 of 2019 and therefore the condition mentioned in section 2(d) of the MCOC Act which states that more than one charge-sheet shall be filed within a period of 10 years does not apply to the Appellant in the present case and hence the provisions of the MCOC Act could not have been invoked against the Appellant;
14. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and learned APP at length, perused the papers referred to and relied by the learned counsel and considered the case law. Submissions made by the parties are on pleaded lines.
15. In the present case, the Appellant has sought a discharge from the applicability of the provisions of the MCOC Act against the Appellant in C.R.No.70 of 2019 on the ground that the Appellant has no nexus whatsoever with the commission of the offence and/or its main accused - Ayub Chikna and/or any other co-accused in the case. That apart it is the Appellant's case that the provisions of MCOC Act cannot be made applicable for indicting the Appellant as the Appellant is not a co-accused in any of the 39 offences registered against Ayub Chikna or in any other offences registered against any other co-accused in the present case. Therefore, it is stated that the sanction given by the Competent Authority to prosecute the Appellant under the MCOC Act is contrary to the provisions of Section 2 (1)
17. In the light of the aforestated legal position, we may now proceed to decide the present case.
17.1. Section 2 of the MCOC Act defines various terms and phrases. The definition enacted in Section 2(d), (e) and (f) are however clear and unambiguous; and that the said definitions of continuing unlawful activity, organized crime and organized crime syndicate would have to be proved for indicting a person of organized crime or being a member of an organized crime syndicate. Under Section 3 what is punishable is organized crime, attempt to commit organized crime, abetting or commission of crime, arbitrary concealing a member of organized crime syndicate or holding property derived and obtained for organized crime. 17.2. In the present case, we are concerned with the organized crime 22 of 40 Cri.Appeal.198.22.doc and whether the prosecution has placed material and cogent evidence on record to prove that the Appellant is a member of the organized crime syndicate headed by Ayub Chikna. In order to indict the Appellant in the organized crime lodged under C.R.No.70 of 2019 and applying the provisions of the MCOC Act, it will have to be therefore shown that the co-accused herein have indulged in an activity prohibited by law which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, that the activities undertaken was either singly or jointly as a member of the organized crime syndicate, that in respect of similar activities in the past more than one charge-sheets have been filed in the competent court within the preceding period of ten years, that the court has taken cognizance of such offences and above all such activity was undertaken by violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means and such activity undertaken was with the object of gaining pecuniary benefits or undue advantage or with the object of promoting insurgency. 17.3. We have perused the list of 39 offences registered against the main accused Ayub Chikna and the list of 10 offences against the other co-accused. Mr. Palkar, learned APP has fairly agreed that the Appellant is not arraigned as an accused in any of the 49 offences registered against Ayub Chikna or any of the other co-accused in the cases filed against them. Further there are two cases registered against the accused being CR No.135 of 2016 under Section 394 IPC and C.R. No. 229 of 2018 under Section 324 IPC which are 23 of 40 Cri.Appeal.198.22.doc characterised by individuality and there is no commonality between these two earlier offences registered and the crime registered in the present case. We have also perused the order of acquittal of Ayub Chikna in C.R.No. 100 of 2009 which is placed on record; hence the statutory condition in Section 2(d) of the MCOC Act pertaining to pendency of more than one charge-sheet within a preceding period of 10 years is therefore not fulfilled for applying the provisions of the MCOC Act to the Appellant in the present case. Further it is clear that there is/are no charge-sheet/s filed against the Appellant as a member of the organized crime syndicate headed by Ayub Chikna in respect of any similar activity in the competent courts within the preceding period of ten years. Therefore the Appellant's indictment does not fall within the purview of the definition carved out under Section 2(d) read with (e) of the MCOC Act.