The main legal point established in the judgment is that MCOCA cannot be invoked multiple times based on the same charge-sheets, and the interpretation of key legal provisions such as 'continuing unlawful activity' and 'organized crime' is crucial in determining the applicability of MCOCA.

1. By W.P.(CRL) Nos. 1555/2011 and 1556/2011 the Petitioner challenges the order dated 18th October, 2011 granting prior approval by the DIG CBI for invoking the provisions of Section 3 of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 ( in short the MCOCA) against the Petitioner in RC/219/2011/E0007 and RC/219/2011/E0008 as illegal. Vide W.P.(CRL) Nos. 242/2012 and 243/2012 the Petitioner challenges the order dated 30th November, 2011 passed by the Learned Designated Court remanding the Petitioner to judicial custody under MCOCA under Section 23(1)(a) in the abovementioned RC Numbers. Vide W.P.(CRL) Nos. 244/2012 and 245/2012 the Petitioner challenges the order dated 14th January, 2012 passed by the DIG CBI according prior approval for invoking the provisions of Section 3 MCOCA under Section 23(1)(a) in RC/219/2011/E009 and RC/219/2011/E0010 respectively.

2. The two principal contentions of learned counsel for the Petitioner are that for the same set of charge-sheet MCOCA has been invoked in 4 cases and secondly the basic ingredients of organized crime are missing in the present cases. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that all the exams were over by May, 2011. Thus when the offence of continuing unlawful activity was invoked against the Petitioner, Petitioner was not continuing any unlawful activity. Further, one single person cannot be said to organize a crime syndicate. Though the accused in the FIR are common, however MCOCA has been invoked only against the Petitioner and against no other person. It is further contended that the offences of cheating and forgery cannot constitute offence of organized crime as the same do not involve an element of coercion or violence. Reliance is placed on Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra 2005 (2) JCC 689; State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal & Anr. (2007) 2 SCC (Crl) 241 and Sherbahadur Akram Khan & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2007 ALL MR (Crl) 1; Jaisingh Asharfilal Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2003 ALL MR (Crl) 1506; Prafulla Vs. State of Maharashtra 2009 ALL MR (Crl) 870 and Madan Vs. State of Maharashtra 2009 ALL MR (Crl) 1447. It is contended that the two charge-sheets should have been filed before the person commits an offence and not after the offence is committed two charge-sheets are filed and then MCOCA is invoked in the third charge-sheet. Since the approval of DIG CBI is illegal and unwarranted, the consequential order of remand passed by the Learned Designated Court is also illegal.

3. Learned counsel for the CBI on the other hand contends that the allegations against the Petitioner are of rigging the results of various entrance examinations conducted by AIIMS and Veterinary Council of India wherein the Petitioner was able to manipulate the marks of candidates who had scored 3/4 marks as successful candidates. The definition of “continuous unlawful activity” is to be determined on the basis of filing of the charge-sheet and cognizance taken thereon and not on the registration of FIR. It is further contended that the provisions of MCOCA can be invoked in more than one case when the cause of action in each case is different and the conspiracies are different. The only three statutory requirements for invoking the provisions of MCOCA are filing of more than one charge-sheet, within preceding 10 years and the Court having taken cognizance of such offence. Since the basic ingredients for invoking MCOCA were duly attracted, the competent authority gave its prior approval after due application of mind. Relying upon State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal & Anr. (supra) it is contended that for invoking MCOCA there is no necessity of the offence containing coercion or threat or intimidation or violence. Thus, there is no merit in the petitions and the same be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Briefly the facts giving rise to the filing of the present