Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

RESERVED ON : MARCH 14, 2016.

JUDMENT DATED : MAY 06, 2016.

JUDGMENT (PER SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J).

1. The appellants- Original accused nos.4, 3, 1 and 2 (herein after referred to accused Accused no.4, Accused No.3, Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 respectively) were tried for the offences under Section 364A, 365, 397 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, (in short MCOC Act) in MCOC Case No.15 of 2005. By judgment and order dated 17.2.2009 the Spl. Judge convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for three years in respect of the offence under Section 364A. The accused are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine Rs.10,000/- in default to salgaonkar 3 of 37 Apeal 393 -09.doc undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each of the offences under Section 365 and 397 of IPC. The accused nos. 1 to 3 are also convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(ii) whereas the accused no.4 is convicted for offence under Section 3(4) of MCOC Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.5 lakhs each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The appellants-accused by these appeals have assailed the legality and validity of their conviction and sentence.

7. PW13 Hareshwar Pimple, PI Airport Police Station, Mumbai, who was investigating the crime No.32 of 2004 took custody of the accused from Gujrat Police Station under transfer warrant. The investigation revealed that the accused were involved in several crimes of similar nature committed by or on behalf of an organised crime syndicate headed by the absconding accused Aryan Shah @ Bunty Pandey. PW22 therefore submitted a report to the Commissioner of Police for application of provisions of MCOC Act.

35. It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the crime was committed by the accused as members of or on behalf of organised crime syndicate headed by the absconding accused Aryan Shah @ Bunty Pandey.

The investigating officer, PW22 therefore submitted a proposal through the Assistant Commissioner of Police, for approval under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOC Act. PW23 Vinayak Kadam, the then salgaonkar 29 of 37 Apeal 393 -09.doc Assistant Commissioner of Police, being satisfied about the applicability of the provisions under MCOC Act, forwarded the proposal for approval. Upon receipt of the approval at Exh.64, PW23 took over further investigation. The confessional statements of the accused no.1 Rajesh, accused no.2 Ramesh and accused no.3 Sartaj, at Exh. 50, 55 and 56 came to be recorded. PW23 made a proposal to the Commissioner of Police for grant of sanction under Section 23(2) of MCOC Act. On receipt of the sanction at Exh.65 he filed a charge sheet against the aforesaid accused before the MCOC Court.

2(f) "Organised Crime Syndicate" means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime;

39. A plain reading of section 2 (e) would indicate that to prove the offence of 'organised crime', among other requirements, the prosecution is required to establish that the accused had salgaonkar 31 of 37 Apeal 393 -09.doc indulged in continuing unlawful activity, which as defined under section 2(d) of the MCOC Act reads as under: