The provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, specifically the expression 'within the preceding period of ten years' in section 2(d), did not violate Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. Perused the records.

2. The petitioners by the present petition seek to challenge the constitutionality of the provisions of law contained in the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter called as "the said Act") allegedly declaring the Acts committed prior to its enforcement to be the offences under the said act as being violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, seek to quash the proceedings against the petitioners initiated under the said Act allegedly on the basis of the acts committed by the petitioners prior to enforcement of the said Act.

3. Though the petition was filed on various grounds and even more grounds were added by way of amendment on two occasions, the challenge in the course of arguments was restricted to the ground of unconstitutionality of the expression "within the preceding period of ten years" in section 2(d) of the said Act contending that the same to be in contravention of the provisions of law contained in Article 20(1) of the Constitution as on account of the said expression the competent authority under the said Act is empowered to consider the acts committed prior to the enforcement of the said Act as the offences under the said Act.

4. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that only those offences which can be said to have been committed after 24th February, 1999 can be taken into consideration for the purpose of the proceedings under the said Act as the said Act came into force from the said date and any act prior to the said date cannot be held to be an offence under the said Act in view of the clear provision in that regard in Article 20(1) of the Constitution. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decisions in (Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and another v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh)1, reported in A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 394, (Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and others)2, reported in 1991(4) S.C.C. 298, (J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. v. Bharti Matha Mishra (Mrs.) and others)3, reported in 2001(5) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)642, (State of Maharashtra v. Kaliar Koil Subramaniam Ramaswamy)4, reported in 1977(3) S.C.C. 525 and (K. Subramaniam and others v. State through Inspector of Police)5, reported in 1988(3) Crimes 633.

5. The notice of this petition was issued and records reveal that it was duly received by the office of the Advocate General. In the course of argument, however, it was informed to the Court that the Additional Government Advocate would represent the Advocate General. However, it pains to note that apart from informing the Court that the challenge to the said Act has already been rejected by the Division Bench at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 27/03 by judgment delivered in March, 2003 and apart from reading few of the paragraphs from the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, no arguments were advanced in reply to the relevant contentions on behalf of the petitioners. The contents of the paragraphs from the affidavit in reply which were read over by the said Additional Government Advocate were also in no way connected with the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Inspite of knowing well that the petition contains various challenges to the said Act and on the ground of being unconstitutional, though in the course of arguments challenge was restricted to only one ground as stated above, and knowing well the object of the said Act, the apathy and subdued attitude on the part of the respondents in rendering the necessary assistance to the Court is unfortunate and uncanny. It is also to be noted that the decision of the Division Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No. 27/03 is totally on a different point and is of no help to either of the parties in the present petition.

6. The Preamble of the said Act states that it was expected to make special provisions for pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document