Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1] A challenge in the present petitions is to the prosecution of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 395, 143, 147, 349, 353, 332, 109, 324, 420, 427, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, Section 37 read with 135 of the Police Act 1861, Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 2016, Section 21(2), 21(3) and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 and Sections 3(1)(II), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).

[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.

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.

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.