Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.11 seconds)
Documents citing Dr.Mahipal Singh vs Cbi & Anr. on 21 May, 2012

Vijay Mann @ Kapil vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 18 December, 2020

In Madhukar s/o Babu (supra), the ld. Division Bench of the Bombay High Court referring to Mahipal Singh (supra) observed that the ingredients of the offence i.e. submission of charge sheet and cognizance of offence in more than one case have not been satisfied and had accordingly held that the accused could not be prosecuted under Section 3 of the Act but could be tried under the various provisions of IPC.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - P M Singh - Full Document

State vs Ravi Kapoor Ors (Mcoca) on 18 October, 2023

It was further held in "Mahipal Vs. CBI", 2014 (3) Crimes 316, that where the FIR detail of all criminal activities showing continuous chain, link of event fulfilling requirement of organized crime or continuing unlawful activities, the applicability of the MCOC Act cannot be challenged. The unlawful activities which are cognizable offence, committed by accused more than once, comes within the mischief of continuing unlawful activity U/s 3 of the MCOC Act. Hence, the defence of the accused persons that SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 256 they were not involved in continuous unlawful activities or they were not member of organized crime syndicate or they were not involved in the organized crime is rejected. 138.4 It is duly proved by the prosecution that accused persons were dependent for their livelihood on the proceeds of the organized crime as committed by their organized crime syndicate and they did not led any evidence that they were having any other pecuniary source for their livelihood, so the presumption is drawn as per Section 17 (2) of the MCOC Act against the accused persons that the pecuniary resources for the livelihood of the accused persons were acquired or derived from the illegal activities of the organized crime syndicate and defence of the accused persons in that regard is also rejected. 138.5 The legal principles of admissibility of circumstantial evidence is well settled in the case law as relied upon by the counsel for accused persons as well as by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. However, the prosecution has duly proved as discussed above by producing the circumstantial evidence, scientific evidence and eye witnesses who identified the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay, Baljeet Singh Malik @ Poppy to corroborate the confessional statement of the accused Ravi Kapoor as recorded U/s 18 of the MCOC Act to establish the fact that accused Ravi Kapoor in furtherance of common intention with the accused persons Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar and Baljeet Singh Malik had murdered the deceased/victim Saumya Vishwanathan with the bullet fired by country made pistol on SC No. 6933/2016 FIR No. 481/2008 State Vs. Ravi Kapoor & Ors. Page No. 257 30.09.2008 in between 03.25 am to 03.55 am at Nelson Mandela Marg, near Pole No. 78 on the road from Vasant Vihar side towards Vasant Kunj side due to which she expired and no material contradiction came on record during the trial. Accordingly, the defence of the accused persons namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Ajay Kumar and Baljeet Singh Malik @ Poppy is rejected.
Delhi District Court Cites 107 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amjad Khan S/O. Aziz Khan vs State Of Mah. Thr. Sakkardara Ps, Dist. ... on 15 March, 2024

In the said judgment, it is held that in order to constitute an offence or organized crime, it has to be established that accused is involved in 'continuing unlawful activity' defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOC Act that is more than one chargesheets in respect of offence of nature specified in Section 2(1)(d) have been filed against him before competent court within preceding period of ten years and the court has taken cognizance of such cases - for invocation for offence of organised crime ingredients constituting that offence must exist on the date the crime is committed or detected. Satisfying the requirements of offence later on to bring the act within mischief of penal provision is not permissible. In order to constitute an offence or organized crime, it has to be established that accused is involved in 'continuing unlawful activity' defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOC Act that is more than one chargesheets in respect of offence of nature specified in Section 2(1)(d) have been filed against him before competent court within preceding period .....17/-
Bombay High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Afzal on 26 August, 2013

Further, in Dr. Mahipal Singh Vs CBI & Anr. W.P. (Crl.)_ 1555/2011 and Crl. M.A. No. 17832/2001, W.P. (Crl.) 1556/2011 and Crl. M.A. 17834/2011, W.P. (Crl.) 242/2012 and Crl. M.A. No.2046/2012­ dod 21.5.2012, while interpreting the word 'unlawful means', in para 15 of the judgment, it was analyzed and concluded that word 'violence' has been used in section 146 and 153 of IPC, the word 'intimidation' has been used in IPC and U/s 506 of IPC the act punishable is criminal intimidation'. The word 'coercion' finds place in the Contract Act only. Thus, it would be seen that the words violence, intimidation and coercion do not belong to the same specific genus, and thus the word unlawful means, cannot be read ejusdem generis to the proceeding words and required to be widely construed keeping in mind the intent of the Statute.
Delhi District Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In Re vs . on 25 July, 2015

Ajit Chandila 168 In the written submissions submitted on behalf of Ajit Chandila as well as in the arguments addressed in the court, the first ground on which the case of the prosecution is challenged is that the ingredi­ ents of MCOCA are not satisfied in relation to accused Ajit Chandalia, First and foremost, there has to be a continuing unlawful activity as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. The offence which is being al­ legedly committed is match fixing which in itself is not an unlawful ac­ tivity. Furthermore, has has been held in the case of Ranjit Singh (Supra) in order to invoke MCOCA mens rea is necessary. The en­ tire case of the prosecution against accused Ajit Chandila does not even prima facie show that accused Ajit Chandia was having the nec­ essary mens rea or the knowledge that the persons with whom he was interacting were part of organized crime syndicate. It has been held in the said case that communication or association with any per­ son must be with the actual knowledge or having reason to believe that he is engaged in assisting the organized crime syndicate.
Delhi District Court Cites 79 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fir No. 234/10 State vs . Nadeem @ Kallu 1 Of 501 on 6 August, 2016

In fact, there must be some evidence to prove as to when the organized crime syndicate was formed or joined by the accused but there is no such evidence on record to prove this origin of the syndicate and nexus between organized crime syndicate and criminal activities of the accused along with that syndicate and merely past involvement of the accused is not sufficient to prove the nexus between the accused and organized crime as held in Mahipal Singh v. CBI, (2014) 11 SCC 282. As such, the evidence of PW1 to PW27 have just proved the past involvement of the accused in the crime without any evidence that the accused Nadeem was kingpin of the organized crime syndicate or was acting as a member of that syndicate or was indulged in such activities for pecuniary gain.
Delhi District Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Eramallappa vs State Of Karnataka By on 23 November, 2016

Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra (CBI Through) 25/01/2006 Manish Nagar Vs. The State of Karnataka (Crl.A.No.18/2009) The State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty (Crl.A.No.1689/2012) (arising out of SLP (Crl.No.1522/2012) The State of Karnataka Vs. Ritesh S/o Vasudeo Wanjari (Crl.A.No.297/2001) State of Maharashtra Vs. Shiva Alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane and others - 2015 (14) SCC 272 Prasad Shrikant Purohit Vs. State of Maharashtra and another - 2015 (7) SCC 440 State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal and Another - 2007 (4) SCC 171 Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another - 2005 (5) SCC 294 Mahipal Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another - 2014 (11) SCC 282 Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon and others Vs. State of Gujarat - 1988 (2) SCC 271 State of Kerala Vs Raneef - AIR 2011 SC 340 26 Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another - 2014 (8) SCC 273 Anil Kumar U R Vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.P. No.4461/2016 Sri K M Muralidhar Vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.
Karnataka High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - B R B - Full Document
1   2 Next