D. G. DESHPANDE, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned P.P. and A.P.P. for the Respondents-State.

2. The Petitioners have challenged by these petitions the applicability of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short "MCOC Act"). The main grievance of the petitioners is that on the date when MCOC Act was applied they had not committed any offence and there was nothing before the Competent Authority to come to the conclusion that the petitioners were indulging in continuing unlawful activity, and, therefore, it was totally wrong and illegal to apply MCOC Act, to them.

3. Mr. Pradhan drew our attention to certain provisions of MCOC Act, viz. Section 2(d), (e), (f). The same reads as under:

"(d) "continuing unlawful activity" means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence;

(e) "organised crime" means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency;

(f) "organised crime syndicate" means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly of collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of orgnaised crime."

Then, also to the provisions of Section 3 regarding punishment under Chapter II of the said Act.

4. Mr. Pradhan laid emphasis on the three definitions of the words "continuing unlawful activity", "organised crime" and "organised crime syndicate". According to him there was nothing with the Authorities to come to the conclusion that the petitioners were indulging in continuing unlawful activity. Secondly, there was no prima facie evidence to show that they have undertaken either singly or jointly such activities. Further, there was no evidence that any charge-sheet in respect of such offence was not filed against them, and, therefore, the order of applying MCOC Act to the petitioners was totally wrong.

5. Mr. Pradhan further contended that MCOC Act came into force in 1999 and offences prior to 1999 cannot be and could not have been taken into consideration. According to him, they are stale offences and because a man has committed offence in past but when he has ceased to do any kind of any illegal activities, MCOC Act cannot be made applicable to him. Mr. Pradhan contended that if past incidents are permitted to be made a subject of new offence, then there would not be opportunity for offender to improve or change the course of his illegal activities and become a law abiding citizen. Mr. Pradhan drew our attention in this regard to certain authorities. One of them was a judgment of Division Bench of this Court (R.M.S. Khandeparkar and P. V. Kakade, JJ.) in group of Criminal Writ Petitions from Criminal Writ Petition No.689 of 2005 and others. Question involved in that case appears to be "Whether a person can be subjected to criminal proceedings under a particular statute which defines the act committed by such persons to be offences punishable thereunder" that will depend upon the facts as to whether the said law has been in force or not at the time when the acts complained of are committed by concerned person. In the said judgment the Division Bench has held:

"Therefore, "commission of cognizable offence" is the essence of FIR. Moment commission of cognizable offence is recorded, the police are bound to investigate in view of the provision

Click Here to Read the rest of this document