JUDGMENT:- By this appeal, the appellant challenges his conviction for offence punishable under Sections 3(l)(ii) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act ("MCOC Act", for short) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of rupees five lacs and conviction for offence punishable under Section 384 read with Section 511 of the Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of rupees two thousand imposed upon him by the learned Judge, Special Court, under MCOC Act, at Nagpur.

2. Facts, which led to the appellant's prosecution, are as under :

The appellant, along with absconding accused Anil Paunipagar, were prosecuted by the State for their involvement in organised crime in Nagpur. On 28-6-2001, When Ashok Moudekar was in his shop at 6.30 p.m., the appellant, a member of gang of Anil Paunipagar, entered his shop and started threatening Ashok. He demanded that Ashok should pay him Rs.1,000/- by way of Khandani (protection money). The appellant threatened Ashok that if the demand is not fulfilled, then the appellant and other members of the gang will cause hurt to Ashok and his servants. On receipt of the complaint of Ashok, the police registered an offence under Section 384 of the Penal Code. The appellant was caught in another crime bearing No.3092 of 2001 on 2-7-2001.

3. In course of investigation, the police found that the appellant, as a member of absconding Anil Paunipagar's gang, had created a terror in Dharampeth and Gokulpeth areas by making demands of money. In course of investigation, a motor-cycle bearing registration No.MH 31 R 79 was recovered from the appellant. The motor-cycle belonged to Devendrasingh, who had been paid only a part of consideration by the appellant. When Devendrasingh had demanded balance of consideration, the appellant threatened him.

4. Since the investigation revealed appellant's involvement in offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOC Act, Police Inspector Shende, Investigating Officer, made a proposal for application of the provisions of the said Act to the Additional Commissioner of Police through proper channel. The Additional Commissioner of Police accorded approval for recording information of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOC Act. The investigation thereafter proceeded in order to find out whether there was material to chargesheet the accused for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOC Act. The further investigation was carried out by Assistant Commissioner of Police Shri. Chavan. After completion of investigation, the entire record of investigation was forwarded to the Additional Director General of Police with a proposal to sanction prosecution of the appellant for offences punishable under MCOC Act. The Additional Director General of Police accorded sanction, whereupon the charge-sheet was sent up. Anil Paunipagar, however, continued to abscond.

5. The learned Judge, Special Court under MCOC Act, Nagpur, charged the appellant of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of MCOC Act, Section 384 read with Section 511 of the Penal Code and Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and hence was put on trial. In its attempt to bring home guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined in all 18 witnesses. Upon consideration of the evidence tendered in the light of the defence of denial taken, the learned Trial Judge held that the appellant was involved in continuing unlawful activity as a member of organised crime syndicate with the object of gaining pecuniary benefits. The learned Judge also held that the appellant had indulged in an activity prohibited by law, which was a cognizable offence having punishment of more than three years prescribed therefor as a member of organised crime syndicate and as such member had threatened Ashok Moudekar, Proprietor of Sadhana Vastralaya, to induce him by putting him under a fear to deliver a sum of Rs.1,000/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document