IMPORTANT POINTS
Words ‘competent Court’ in Section 2(d) of MCOCA not restricted to Courts in Delhi.
Charge sheets filed in Courts in other States can be taken into account for the purpose of constituting continuing unlawful activity;
There cannot be a prosecution under MCOCA in Delhi without an organised crime being committed within Delhi.

Headnote:(a) Interpretation of statute – Penal statutes have to be construed strictly – However, the interpretation must advance the object which the legislature had in view – a (Para 13, 14)
       (2005) 5 SCC 294; (2007) 4 SCC 171; (1976) 3 SCC 684 – Relied upon
       (b) Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 – Sections 3 and 4 – Territorial jurisdiction – Statutes made by a Sovereign State cannot be invalidated on ground of extra territoriality – Instantly, prosecution of the Respondents under MCOCA cannot be said to be invalid if there is nexus between the charge sheets filed within the State of Uttar Pradesh and the State of NCT of Delhi (Para 23, 24)
       (1944) FCR 229; [1957] SCR 874; [1958] SCR 1355; (1959) Supp. 2 SCR 619 – Relied upon
       (1891) A.C. 455; (1933) 49 C.L.R. 220; (1988) 166 CLR 1; 50 C.L.R. 337; 221 U.S. 280 (1911); 730 F.2D. 1308 (1984) : 470 U.S.1031(1985) – Referred
       AIR 1958 Bom 68 (FB) – Distinguished
       (c) Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 – Section 3 – Organised crime – Not restricted to a particular State – Continuing activity established by at least two charge sheets within previous 10 years – Held, charge sheets filed in UP are relevant for case in NCR of Delhi. (Para 25)
       (d) Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 – Section 2 (1)(d) – Competent court – Cannot be given a restricted meaning – Charge sheets filed in UP showing nexus with NCR of Delhi – Held, ‘competent Courts’ in the definition of ‘continuing unlawful activity’ is not restricted to Courts in Delhi alone. (Para 26)
       [1957] SCR 874 – Relied upon
       (e) Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 – Section 3 – Crime committed in one state can be tried in another state if the detrimental effect is in that State – Instantly, crime committed in NCR of Delhi – Charge sheets filed in UP being considered only to determine antecedents of respondents. (Para 28, 29, 31)
       (2003) Bom. L.R. (Cri.)947; (2008) 13 SCC 5; 164 (2009) DLT 218; (2003) Bom CR(Cri) 1606; 288 F.2d. 545 (1961): 366 U.S. 948(1961); 730 F.2D. 1308 (1984) : 470 U.S.1031(1985); [1977] 2 All ER 909; [1974] 1 All ER 783 – Referred
       AIR 1958 Bom 68 (FB) – Distinguished
       (f) Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 – Section 3 and 4 – In absence of an organized crime being committed in Delhi, the accused cannot be prosecuted on the basis of charge sheets filed outside Delhi. (Para 32)
       (g) Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 – Section 2(1)(d) – Continuous unlawful activity – A cognizable offence punishable with minimum sentence of three years or more. (Para 33)
       Facts of the case:
       The Respondents were discharged by the Special Judge MCOCA, New Delhi District, Patiala House, New Delhi in S.C. No.139 of 2013 dated 5th February, 2014 pertaining to offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.
       The Appellant-State of NCT of Delhi filed an appeal under Section 12 of MCOCA before the High Court of Delhi which was dismissed.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is no cause of action for initiation of proceedings under MCOCA.
       Result: Appeal disposed.

JUDGMENT

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

1. The Respondents were discharged by the Special Judge MCOCA, New Delhi District, Patiala House, New Delhi in S.C. No.139 of 2013 dated 5th February, 2014 pertaining to offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MCOCA’). The Appellant-State of NCT of Delhi filed an appeal under Section 12 of MCOCA before the High Court of Delhi which was dismissed on 16th April, 2015. Aggrieved, the Appellant-State has approached this Court by filing the above Appeal.

2. FIR No. 10 of 2013 was registered in the Special Cell (SB) PS 5 th Special Cell (SB) on March, 2013 on the basis of information received from Shri S.K. Giri, Assistant Commissioner of Police (the ACP for short). The ACP prepared a proposal for registration and investigation of a case under Sections 3/4 of MCOCA. According to the proposal, the first Respondent who was arrested in connection with the FIR No.69 dated 8th October, 2007 under Sections 384, 387, 417, 419, 471, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (the ‘IPC’ for short), registered in P.S., Special Cell, New Delhi, was also involved in 20 cases of attempt to murder, murder, extortion, rioting, cheating, forgery and for offences under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the UP Gangsters Act’). Respondent No.1 was involved in committing unlawful activities along with other members of a crime syndicate since 1985 in an organized manner. The particulars of eight crimes, the cognizance of which was taken by the competent criminal Courts in and outside Delhi were referred to. It was also mentioned that Respondents manipulated a fake identity for themselves and have floated several companies from the ill-gotten wealth. Several properties were acquired by these companies, the details of which have been specified in the proposal. Considering the magnitude of the criminal activities of the Respondents and their organised crime syndicate, the informant felt that it was necessary to invoke the stringent provisions of MCOCA. The particulars of 14 members of the syndicate was given in the proposal and approval was sought for conducting a thorough investigation into the role of each of them for offences under Section 3 and 4 of MCOCA.

3. A final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was filed on 26th September, 2013. Briefly, the contents of the charge sheet are as follows:

I. The first Respondent was involved in 39 crimes of different nature including murder, attempt to murder, waging war against the State, extortion, rioting, etc. between 1985 and 2008. On several occasions, he was booked under the UP Gangsters Act but had managed to evade arrest. He was finally arrested on 23rd January, 2008 from Bhubaneswar in connection with FIR No.69 of 2007, PS Special Cell, Delhi.

II. FIR No.69 of 2007 was registered on a complaint made by Sudhir Singh who alleged that at 7.15 p.m. on 28th July, 2007, he received a call from the Respondents who demanded payment of Rs.50 Lakhs as protection money. The Respondents threatened him of dire consequences in case the demand was not met.

III. Another FIR bearing No.122 of 2010 was registered on 17th May, 2010 under Sections 341,506 r/w 34 of the IPC at Subzi Mandi Police Station, Delhi on the complaint filed by Sudhir Singh alleging that Narender alias Mamu and Sushil Singh, MLA, who was the nephew of Respondent No.1, along with others threatened him to withdraw the cases filed against the Respondents. This incident, according to Sudhir Singh, happened when he was attending proceedings in the Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi.

IV. There is a reference in the final report of six other cases against the Respondents, cognizance of which was taken up by the competent Courts in Uttar Pradesh. The details of the said si

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 1005

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAS.A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.STATE (NCT OF DELHI) – Appellant(s) Versus BRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN KUMAR AND ANR. – Respondent(s) CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1750 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.5497 of 2015)Decided On : 09-10-2017

Cases Referred (8)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) – Appellant(s)
Versus
BRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN KUMAR AND ANR. – Respondent(s)
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1750 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.5497 of 2015)
Decided On : 09-10-2017