IMPORTANT POINT
Abetment of organised crime syndicate – Act of appellant in subletting canteen premises in no way could be termed to be an act of abetment of organised crime syndicate.

JUDGMENT

R.G. Avachat, J.—This is an appeal under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (‘MCOCA’). The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 18th January, 2023 passed by the Special Court, Ahmednagar, in Special Case No. 570 of 2020, refusing to grant the appellant discharge from the case.

2. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present appeal, are as follows:-

The elections for the memberships of Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar were held in February 2017. One Bhagyashree Mokate and Mangal Avhad were in the fray on behalf of a political part, “Shivsena”. Both the candidates held a party (wining and dining) for their followers on 12th February, 2017. The liquor served in the said party was found to have been spurious. As a result thereof, nine persons lost their lives and thirteen suffered grievous injuries. A crime vide C.R. No. 31 of 2017 was, therefore, registered with MIDC Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 304 and 328 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘I.P.C.’). During investigation, it was revealed that co-accused viz. Mohan Duggal, Jagjit Singh Gambhir and Zakir Shaikh would run the Civil Hospital Canteen. The trio with the assistance of other co-accused viz. Hamid Shaikh, Shekhar Jadhav, Bharat Joshi, Dada Wani, Ajit Sevani, Yakub Shaikh, Navnath Dhadge, Amit Gotiyani, Rajendra Ghuge would prepare/manufacture illicit liquor and sell it to the consumers. Considering the Zilla Parishad elections, the co-accused had prepared such hooch in large scale and sold it. The hooch was served in the party that was held by Bhagyashree Mokate and Mangal Avhad. As a result, the tragedy took place.

3. During investigation, it was revealed that Jagjit Singh Gambhir, Mohan Duggal and Zakir Shaikh were the members of an organised crime syndicate. Jagjit Singh Gambhir was the head of syndicate. Provisions of MCOCA were, therefore, invoked against them. Meaning thereby, they were alleged to have committed an organised crime punishable under Section 3 of the MCOCA and related offences thereunder besides offences under I.P.C.

4. In this appeal, we are concerned with the role of the appellant in the alleged crime. As per the case of prosecution, the canteen of Civil Hospital was leased out to the present appellant. The lease period was over by the end of the year 2014. Fresh tender was floated. Since no response was received, the appellant was asked to continue the canteen. Instead running the canteen by himself, he sub-let it to the prime accused – Zakir Shaikh. In short, according to the prosecution, the appellant has committed the offence of abetment of organised crime.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was no shred of material to indicate that post 2014, the appellant run the canteen or he himself paid the rent to Civil Hospital. According to him, there are no other allegations against the appellant. Learned counsel relied on following authorities to ultimately urge for allowing the appeal:-

I) P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2010 SC 663

II) Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2011 AIR SCW 3730

III) State of M.P. Vs. Sheetla Sahai and Ors., 2009 AIR SCW 5514

IV) Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K. Narayan Rao, 2012 AIR SCW 5139

6. Learned A.P.P. would, on the other hand, submit that a serious offence took place. Nine persons lost their lives and thirteen persons were seriously affected. During investigation, it was revealed that it was the appellant, who was running the canteen for the year 2013-14. After the lease period was over, he was asked to continue to run the canteen. The appellant unauthorisedly sub-let the canteen to prime accused – Zakir Shaikh. Our attention was drawn to the police statement of the Superintendent and other officials of the civil hospital. Confessional statements of the co-accused have also been relied on. Some bank documents indicating the appellant to have received a sum of Rs.21,000/