Point of Law: Unlawful activity - If a person may or may not have any direct role to play as regards commission of an organized crime, if a nexus either with an accused who is a member of an “organized crime syndicate” or with offence in nature of an “organized crime” is established that would attract invocation of Section 3(2) of MCOCA.

JUDGMENT :

N.J. Jamadar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the Counsels for the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to an order dated 6th May, 2021, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nashik City, whereby approval under Section 23(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (“the MCOC Act”) has been granted to invoke the provisions of Sections 3(1)(i),(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act to CR No.37 of 2021, registered with Gangapur Police Station, Nashik, for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 120-B, 115 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”) and Section 4 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, against the petitioner and co-accused.

3. The petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts :

(a) Vishal Mandlik - the first informant, lodged FIR with the allegations that on 17th February, 2021, at about 5.30 pm. while his father Ramesh (the deceased) was working in their feld situated at Survey No.69/1 at Gangapur road, he was stabbed in the neck. The deceased was shifted to Civil Hospital. However, he was declared dead. The first informant alleged that his father was done to death by Sachin Mandlik (A1) and his associates, including the petitioner, in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy as there was a dispute between the deceased and Sachin Mandlik over an immovable property. On the very day of occurrence, Sachin Mandlik (A1) had threatened the deceased out of his life when the deceased and the accused had attended the Court in connection with a criminal case, which was finally heard on that day.

(b) The petitioner herein was named as the person through whom Sachin Mandlik and his associates were exerting pressure on the deceased to enter into a settlement and withdraw the cases instituted against Sachin Mandlik and others. The petitioner came to be arrested on 18th February, 2021.

(c) Investigation commenced. A proposal came to be submitted to the Commissioner of Police, the competent authority under Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act, by the Investigating Officer to invoke the provisions of MCOC Act as the investigation revealed that there was an organized crime syndicate headed by Sachin Mandlik (A1), and Balasaheb Kolhe – the petitioner, Abasaheb Paraji Bhandage (A7) and Rammi Rajput, the absconding accused, were the kingpins and mentors of the said organized crime syndicate. The said crime syndicate had indulged in heinous crimes such as murder, extortion, forgery, cheating, land grabbing etc. by means of violence, intimidation and coercion to gain pecuniary advantage.

(d) The competent authority was persuaded to accord the approval under Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act as more than two charge-sheets were submitted in respect of the unlawful activities of the organized crime syndicate, for the offences punishable with imprisonment for three years or more in the preceding ten years. It was noted that the absconding accused Rammi Rajput was the kingpin of the land grabbing activities in the city and he used financial power through various conduits including the petitioner Balasaheb to grab the lands which were entangled in litigation. After adverting to the modus operendi of the syndicate and the continuing unlawful activity, the competent authority passed the impugned approval order dated 6th May, 2021.

(e) The petitioner has assailed the invocation of the provisions of MCOC Act on the ground that, on the one hand, there was no material to connect the petitioner with the alleged organized crime syndicate, and, on the other hand, the impugned order suffers from manifest non-application of mind. The petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused in the two charge-sheets, bearing CR No.151 of 2013, registered at Gangapur Police Station, and CR No.176 of 2018, registered at Vani Police Station, referred to and relied upon by the competent authority. In any event, those offen