Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
A.M.KHANWILKAR, J
Dinesh Mahadev Bhondve - Appellant.
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1212 OF 2004
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1374 OF 2004
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.24 OF 2005
Decided on: APRIL 9, 2007
The Court upheld the trial court's conviction of the appellants under sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). The Court held that the prosecution had established that the appellants were members of an organised crime syndicate and had engaged in continuing unlawful activities, including extortion, robbery, and kidnapping, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits. The Court rejected the appellants' arguments that the trial court had erred in its findings of fact and that the provisions of MCOCA were unconstitutional.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted by the trial court for offences punishable under sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). The appellants were acquitted of the offence punishable under section 3(1)(i) and 3(2) of the MCOCA. However, the appellants were found guilty of offences punishable under section 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the MCOCA. The appellants were sentenced to undergo 5 years of imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- each on each count. In default of payment of fine, the appellants were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year on each count. The trial court directed the substantive sentences to run concurrently.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution had established that the appellants were members of an organised crime syndicate and had engaged in continuing unlawful activities, including extortion, robbery, and kidnapping, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits. The Court held that the trial court had not erred in its findings of fact and that the provisions of MCOCA were constitutional.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established that the appellants were members of an organised crime syndicate and had engaged in continuing unlawful activities, including extortion, robbery, and kidnapping, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits? 2. Whether the trial court had erred in its findings of fact? 3. Whether the provisions of MCOCA were unconstitutional?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the prosecution had established that the appellants were members of an organised crime syndicate and had engaged in continuing unlawful activities, including extortion, robbery, and kidnapping, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits. The Court relied on the evidence of the police officers who had investigated the case, the statements of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence to conclude that the appellants were guilty of the offences charged. 2. The Court held that the trial court had not erred in its findings of fact. The Court noted that the trial court had carefully considered the evidence and had reached a reasonable conclusion. The Court also noted that the appellants had not presented any evidence to contradict the prosecution's case. 3. The Court held that the provisions of MCOCA were constitutional. The Court rejected the appellants' arguments that the provisions of MCOCA were vague and overbroad, and that they violated the appellants' right to due process of law.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the trial court's conviction of the appellants under sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).
Key Points: - (!) The court explains the meaning and interrelation of continuing unlawful activity, organized crime, and organized crime syndicate under MCOCA. - (!) (!) (!) Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) outline penalties for organised crime and for being a member of an organised crime syndicate; minimum five years and Rs. 5 lakhs fine. - (!) (!) The court upholds conviction based on analysis of PW 1, PW 11, other witnesses, and documentary evidence showing repeated cognizable offences over a ten-year window and cognizance by courts. - (!) (!) (!) Discussion of Article 14 equality concerns regarding continuing unlawful activity definitions; court clarifies purpose and non-discrimination in defining antecedents for applying MCOCA. - (!) (!) Sanctioning and cognizance processes (approval for FIR registration under section 23(1)(a) and sanction under section 23(2)) are properly supported by evidence of cognizance taken by courts. - (!) Court rejects leniency; confirms minimum sentencing under sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4). - (!) (!) Emphasizes that continuing unlawful activity requires more than one cognizable offence with 3+ years imprisonment, within ten years, and involvement of organized crime syndicate membership or representation.
1. This common Judgment will dispose of all the three cognate appeals.
2. The foremost Appeal No.1212 of 2004 is filed by the accused no.4 (Dinesh Mahadeo Bondve). The following Appeal No.1374 of 2004 is filed by accused No.3(Vishal Parshuram Sunake) and the last Appeal No.24 of 2005 is filed by accused No.1(Kishan Nathu Pardeshi). The appellants along with other three accused were tried simplicitor for offences punishable under sections 3 (1) (i), 3(1) (ii), 3 (2) and 3 (4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act,1999 (hereinafter referred to as MCOCA). The trial Court by the impugned Judgment and order in these appeals, dated 11th August, 2004, acquitted accused nos.2, 5 and 6 of all the charges. In so far as the appellants (accused nos.1,3 and 4) are concerned, they have been acquitted of offence punishable under section 3 (1) (i) and 3 (2) of the MCOCA. However, these appellants(accused Nos. 1,3 and 4) have been found guilty of offences punishable under section 3 (1) (ii) and 3 (4) of the MCOCA. For each of these offences, the appellants have been ordered to undergo sentence for 5 years and pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each on each count, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year on each count. The trial Court has however, directed the substantive sentences to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case is that, a complaint of one Pujari of Kamshet was received in police station Vadgaon-Maval, which was registered as C.R.No.95 of 2001, for offences punishable under section 387 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said offence was registered against accused no.1 and others. In connection with the said offence, an inquiry was commenced. During such inquiry, it transpired that several criminal cases of serious offences were registered against the accused no.1 in the past. On inquiries with police station of Lonavla city, Lonavla Rural, Yerawada and also Vadgaon-Maval, it was revealed that there were as many as 23 offences registered against the accused no.1 and his henchmen. All these offences pertained to offences affecting human body or offences against property under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. It also transpired that the accused no.1 was the head of a gang which was indulging in such offences in the past. The accused no.1 himself and with the help of his associates, was indulging in those offences in the concerned areas for quite sometime. As it was revealed that more than one charge sheets have been filed before the competent local courts within the prescribed period of 10 years against the accused no.1 and his associates in relation to cognisable offences punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more undertaken either singly or jointly as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate and the concerned Courts have had taken cognisance of such offences and more so that the said continuing unlawful activities were carried out by use of violence or threat of violence with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic advantage for the accused no.1 himself as well as for his associates, the concerned Police Officer Vijay Kumar Bhoite (PW 1) prepared a report dated 30th October, 2001 addressed to the Special I.G. Kolhapur Range for seeking approval to register offence under the stated provisions of the MCOCA, as was required in terms of section 23 (1) (a) of that Act. The said report Exhibit 21 is quite exhaustive- as it refers to every singular criminal case against the respective accused. Most of the cases are covered by offences either under Chapter XVI or XVII of Indian Penal Code. Incidently, this report names 37 persons who were stated to be indulging in continuing unlawful activities as members of the organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate and committing organised crimes within the meaning of MC
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
