2014 Supreme(Bom) 1772

In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & C.V. BHADANG, JJ.
Narendra Singh @ Dallu Sardar
Versus
State of Maharashtra
Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 2014
Decided On : 22-09-2014

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227 Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999, Sections 2(d) and 3 Application for discharge of accused. - Since material on record prima facie showing that accused is running organised crime syndicate along with other associates hence accused charged under Section 3 of Act cannot be discharged. Section 2(d) defining continuing unlawful activity does not envisage charge-sheets in relation to "organized crime" as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act. It also nowhere stipulates that the charge-sheets should be against the accused in last charge-sheet under this Act or any of his co-accused in such charge-sheet. This scheme is itself sufficient to negate the challenge of present appellant. Charge-sheets in relation to offences punishable with lesser punishments filed against an accused as part or representative or member of a crime syndicate or against its other members, may be relevant to demonstrate the existence of such a syndicate. Similarly, the existence or involvement of any organized syndicate or fact that accused in charge-sheets already filed acted for or were acting at the instance of such a syndicate or co-accused were its part or members or representatives, may itself surface later on i.e. after filing of earlier charge-sheets or earlier trial and hence, the said existence or capacity or involvement of or on behalf of the crime syndicate would not find mention in any of such previous charge-sheets. Section 2(d) does not contemplate any "accused specific" ingredient and needs independent interpretation uninfluenced by Section 2(e). This definition gives primacy to direct or indirect role played by the syndicate and individuals roped in subsequent charge-sheet become relevant only because of their connection with earlier crime or accused therein.

       Section 2(e) is a specie carved out of a larger concept seen in Section 2(d) by the State Legislature. Thus to control organised commission of crimes, commission of at least two cognizable offences, completion of investigation of the same, cognizance of the charge-sheets filed in relation thereto meet requirements of Section 2(d). Section 2(e) adds one more rider to it.

       If mention of fact that such continuing unlawful activity was committed by the accused or his colleagues either singly or jointly, as a member of any organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, is held a prerequisite in more than one charge-sheet in previous ten years, the purpose of enactment itself would be defeated. Commission of first crime by an individual or few accused together will never show the requisite link or affinity needed to demonstrate either existence or participation of or on behalf of a syndicate. It may surface after more than one such offences are committed or charge-sheets are filed. Therefore, only the State Legislature has given wide time frame of 10 years to see that more than one charge-sheet of which cognizance is taken by the competent Court are filed in relation to such continuing unlawful activity.

       In the present case undoubtedly the appellant is facing prosecution in four previous crimes within preceding 10 years and even if crime is excluded under Sections 294 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and for that matter even Crime under Sections 377, 397, 367 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, having regard to the previous charge-sheets against the appellant and the co-accused and the nature of the offences would prima facie show the existence of organised crime syndicate. In the present case, prima facie, the allegations are relatable to a dispute with regard to the dealing in real estate. The submission on behalf of the appellant that there is some discrepancy as to whether it was the appellant who was intermeddling with the property in which deceased was dealing or otherwise, The fact remains that there is prima facie material to show the commission of an offence of the nature which the MCOC Act seeks to control or prevent.