Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

81. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has further argued that the prosecution has been able to prove that more than one chargesheet was filed against both the accused persons in which the competent courts have taken cognizance. He has further argued that it has been duly proved beyond any doubt that both the accused persons were running an organized crime syndicate. He has further argued that sanction to prosecute under Section 23(2) of MCOCA has been duly admitted by the accused persons under Section 294 CrPC. He has further argued that both the accused persons namely Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria and Dhirpal @ Kana had made pecuniary gains and had created terror amongst the general public to enforce their supremacy and, therefore, they are liable to be convicted under Section 3 and 4 of MCOCA.

100. Insofar as first argument regarding proving of proposal is concerned, since the approval under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA has been admitted by accused persons in the present FIR as Ex.A-25, therefore, non-summoning of the witnesses pertaining to the proposal is not fatal to the prosecution at all.

101. The approval under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA has been admitted by the accused persons under Section 294 CrPC and has been exhibited as Ex.A-25. Perusal of the approval Ex.A-25 clearly shows that competent authority had applied its mind before granting the approval for initiating investigation under Section 3 of MCOCA against accused Vikas and his associates as it shows that it has taken into consideration the involvement of accused Vikas Lagarpuria in various offences and the nature of offences he was involved in.

103. The FIR in the present case was admitted by the accused persons under Section 294 CrPC and was exhibited as Ex.A-7.

104. The investigation in this case was carried out and the sanction to prosecute both the accused persons under Section 23(2) of MCOCA was duly granted which has already been admitted under Section 294 CrPC by the accused persons and have been exhibited as Ex.A26. The said sanction to prosecute is reproduced hereinunder:-

"SANCTION U/S 23(2) OF MAHARASHTRA CONTROL OF ORGANISED CRIME ACT, 1999

Names of accused (i) Vikas PK s/o Vijender Singh arrested on 27/04/15 persons arrested (ii) Vinit @ Johny arrested on 18/04/15

(iii) Pawan s/o Surender Gulia arrested on 18/04/15

(iv) Dhirpal @ Kana formally arrested on 08/05/15

(v) Vikas Lagarpuria formally arrested on 05/07/15 u/s 120B/201 IPC

131. The certified copies of all the chargesheets in which cognizance has been taken, have been admitted under Section 294 CrPC by the accused persons. Therefore, it has been proved on record that more than one chargesheet was filed against them before the Competent Courts within preceding period of ten years and cognizance was duly taken. But that is not the only SC no.440644/2016 Page No. 67 of 114 State vs. Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Lagarpuria & Anr. FIR No.531/2015 PS Najafgarh requirement of Section 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(e) of MCOCA.