SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

.1. The petitioner against whom thirty-three (33) FIRs were registered for various serious offences during the period 1983-1995 was extradited from Singapore to India on 30.8.1995. The extradition was based on four (4) FIRs out of the said thirty-three (33) FIRs and in the subsequent period during 1995 to 1999 six (6) more FIRs were registered against the petitioner. On 2.1.2002 the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was extended to the National Capital Territory of Delhi vide GSR6(E). Two (2) more FIRs were registered against the petitioner being FIR Nos.33/03 and 125/03 though according to the petitioner they arise out of the same incident. On 29.12.2006, FIR No.104/06 was registered at P.S. Lodhi Road under Section 3 of the said Act against the petitioner and another accused.

.2. The petitioner filed a writ petition, being WP (Crl.) No.84/2007 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.104/2006 on the ground that the registration of the said FIR was in derogation of the mandate contained in Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India which prohibits application of ex post facto criminal laws. The proceedings recorded in the said criminal writ petition on 22.1.2007 show that files of WP (Crl.) Nos.45/2006, 159-160/2006 & 161-162/2006 titled as Jagmohan @ Mohar Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Others decided on 1.12.2006 were called. It is the case of the petitioner that there were certain observations made in the decision of Jagmohan & Mohar Singh case (supra) which had an effect on the writ petition filed by the petitioner and thus the counsel for the petitioner withdrew WP (Crl.) No.84/2007 with liberty to file a fresh petition seeking to challenge the constitutional validity of the said Act as applicable to Delhi being violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. It is thereafter that the present writ petition has been filed in March 2007 making the following prayers:

.“…. A. strike down Section 3 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (as applicable to NCT of Delhi), as ultra vires being violative of Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India; B. Quash the impugned FIR No.104/06, dated 29.12.2006 registered at P.S. Special Cell under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (as extended to the NCT of Delhi) and proceedings emanating therefrom; ….”

3. The pleadings were completed in the writ petition and since the question raised in the writ petition was regarding interpretation of Section 3 of the said Act, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra also requested that he should be heard and thus the State of Maharashtra was impleaded as the third respondent in terms of the order dated 13.7.2009. The synopsis filed by the counsel for the petitioner sought to raise various issues but during the course of hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, confined the submissions only to one issue, which is as under:

“Whether the act/offence committed prior to the coming into force of MCOCA can be taken into account for prosecution under Section 3(1) of the said Act?”

4. The MCOCA was enacted as an Act to make special provisions for prevention and control of and for coping with criminal activity by organized crime syndicate or gang, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The objects and reasons of the Act insofar as the State of Maharashtra is concerned have discussed the fact that organized crime has come up as a serious threat to our society irrespective of national boundaries. Such activity is fueled by illegal wealth generation by contract killings, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnapping for ransom, collection of protection money and money laundering, etc. The organized crime syndicates make a common cause with terrorist gan