The term “other advantage” used in section 2(e) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOCA”) cannot be read as ejusdem generis with the words “gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic”.

B.R. Gavai, J.

Since the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 26th April 2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.20/2011 has disagreed with the view taken earlier by two Division Benches of this Court in Sherbahadur Akram Khan v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1 and Madan Ramkisan Gangwani v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1447 that the term “other advantage” used in section 2(e) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOCA” for short) has to be read ejusdem generis with the words “for pecuniary benefits and undue economic”, the matter is placed before us.

2. The question, therefore, that we are called upon to answer is “as to whether the term “other advantage” has to be read as ejusdem generis with the words “gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic advantage” or whether the said term “other advantage” is required to be given a wider meaning”.

3. We have heard Mrs.A.S.Pai, learned Addl.P.P. and Mr.Amit Desai, learned senior counsel in support of the proposition that the term “other advantage” is required to be given wider meaning and Mr.S.R.Chitnis, learned senior counsel, Mr.A.H.H.Ponda and Mr.Shrikant Shivade, learned counsel in support of the proposition that the term “other advantage” is required to be read as ejusdem generis with the words “gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic advantage”.

4. It is the bone of contention of Mr.Desai and Mrs.Pai that if the wide meaning is not given to the term “other advantage”, it would frustrate the legislative purpose of enacting the MOCCA which has been enacted for curbing the activities of the organised crime syndicate. It is submitted that the preamble of the enactment would give key to find out indication of the purpose for which the Act is enacted. It is submitted that from the perusal of the preamble, it would reveal that the Act has been enacted for making special provisions for prevention and control and coping with criminal activities of the organised crime syndicate or gang. It is submitted that from the preamble it cannot be said that the Act has been enacted for the purpose of preventing or controlling the criminal activities which are carried only with the objective of gaining pecuniary or economic advantage. It is, therefore, submitted that if a narrow meaning is given to the term “other advantage”, that would not be in consonance with the legislative intent. Learned counsel submits that there are various other advantages for which the organised crime syndicate operate, like political advantage, religious advantage, pressuring the witnesses with an objective of assuring acquittal in the criminal trial. Learned counsel have relied upon various judgments of the Apex Court in support of the proposition that rule of ejusdem generis is not a universal rule of interpretation and as to whether the said rule has to be applied will depend upon various factors including purpose for which the Act is enacted.

5. Learned Addl.P.P. as well as Mr.Desai, learned Senior Counsel submit that the two Division Benches of this Court in Anil SadashivNanduskar v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (3) Mh.L.J.(Cri) 650 and in the case of Ganesh Nivrutti Marne v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 (2) BCR(Cri) 586 have taken a view that the term “other advantage” cannot be read as ejusdem generis with pecuniary benefits and undue economic advantage. It is submitted that the said view is a correct view taking into consideration legislative intent and, as such, the same needs to be upheld.

6. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Chitnis, Mr.Ponda, Mr.Shivade and Mr.Saraogi that the words used in section 2(e) of the MOCCA are unambiguous and plain. It is submitted that the words “other advantage” are preceded by the words “gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue undue economic or”. It is, therefore, submitted that these two species which form basis for common genus precede the words “other advantage” and, therefore, the