2010 Supreme(Bom) 713
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA DESAI & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.K. TAHILRAMANI
Ganesh Nivrutti Marne,
Versus
The State of Maharashtra through Kothrud Police Station, Pune.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.930 OF 2009
Decided on : 07-05-2010
For the Appellant :S.R. Chitnis, senior counsel with Ashish Sawant, Advocate.
For the Respondent: P.H. Kantharia, A.P.P.
The court held that the appellant was not entitled to discharge under MCOCA because there was prima facie evidence of his involvement in the crime and the application of MCOCA was justified.
Headnote:
The court held that the appellant, accused of murder as part of an organized crime syndicate, was not entitled to discharge under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act (MCOCA) as there was prima facie evidence of his involvement in the crime and the application of MCOCA was justified.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was accused of murder as part of an organized crime syndicate. He filed an appeal challenging the rejection of his discharge application under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act (MCOCA).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was prima facie evidence of the appellant's involvement in the crime and that the application of MCOCA was justified. The court noted that the appellant was the leader of the organized crime syndicate and that he and his associates had committed the offenses alleged against them.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was entitled to discharge under MCOCA. 2. Whether there was prima facie evidence of the appellant's involvement in the crime. 3. Whether the application of MCOCA was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to discharge under MCOCA because there was prima facie evidence of his involvement in the crime and the application of MCOCA was justified. 2. The court found that there was prima facie evidence of the appellant's involvement in the crime based on the statements of witnesses and other evidence. 3. The court held that the application of MCOCA was justified because the appellant was the leader of the organized crime syndicate and he and his associates had committed the offenses alleged against them.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the rejection of the appellant's discharge application.
Ranjana Desai, J.
1. The appellant is accused 7 in MCOCA Special Case No.2 of 2007 pending in the court of Special Judge (under MCOCA), Pune. In this appeal filed under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 (for short, “the MCOCA”), the appellant has challenged order dated 19/8/2009 whereby his application for discharge was rejected.
2 The prosecution case needs to be shortly stated. It is as under:
The appellant along with other accused hatched conspiracy and committed murder of Sandeep Mohol (for convenience, “the deceased”) on 4/10/2006 at about 11.30 a.m. while he was proceeding in his four wheeler near a traffic signal near Paud Flyover Bridge, Paud Road, Pune. The appellant and others committed murder of the deceased with the aid of chopper, sickle, revolver, etc. on account of previous enmity and rivalry between the two gangs. The appellant heads the Ganesh Marane Gang and all the accused are members of the said gang. The appellant and other members of the organized crime syndicate have committed several offences of similar nature in the past to gain an edge over the rival gang and to achieve supremacy in the local area. The appellant and other accused acting in a synchronized manner planned and conspired to murder the deceased on 4/10/2006. The accused came on motorcycles and surrounded the four wheeler in which the deceased was sitting. They broke the glasses of the windows of the four wheeler of the deceased and attacked the deceased in a well planned manner. After successfully commissioning the crime, they fled away. Offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120-B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and Section 3(25) of the Arms Act were registered vide
C.R. No.562 of 2006 at Kothrud Police Station, Pune on the complaint lodged by Mr. Prakash Dagdu Karpe against five named accused and 3-4 unknown persons. During the course of investigation, police came to the conclusion that the appellant and other accused are members of organized crime syndicate headed by the appellant and they were indulging in organized crime with a view to gaining pecuniary benefits. Therefore, after obtaining approval under Section 23(1) of the MCOCA, offences under Sections 3 (1), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOCA came to be added. Thereafter, sanction under Section 23(2) of the MCOCA was obtained from the Competent Authority. The appellant and others came to be arrested on 25/10/2006. The application preferred by the appellant praying for discharge has been rejected vide the impugned order and, hence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. We have heard, at some length, Mr. Chitnis, senior counsel appearing for the appellant. Mr. Chitnis has taken us through the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Preamble of the MCOCA. He has also taken us through the relevant provisions of the MCOCA more particularly Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e) and 2(1)(f). Mr. Chitnis submitted that Section 2(1)(e) of the MCOCA describes “organized crime” as 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 object of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency. Mr. Chitnis submitted that if we read the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the MCOCA and the Preamble thereof and definition of the term “organized crime”, it is clear that the continuing unlawful activity must be indulged in 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. Mr. Chitnis submitted that pecuniary benefits is the main ingredient of this section and unless there is material to show that the continu