The main legal point established in the judgment is that the engagement of services from an organized crime syndicate for a criminal act qualifies as 'continuing unlawful activity' and 'abetment' under the MCOCA, even if the individual is not a direct member of the syndicate.

Crl. Rev. P. 714/2013 & Crl. M.A. No. 18769/2013

1. This revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 27.07.2013 wherein petitioner Sandeep has been charged under Section 3 (2) and Section 3 (4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MCOCA’).

2. Record shows that the present petitioner, along with 15 other persons, has been charge-sheeted under Section 3 of the MCOCA. The version of the prosecution is that Amit @ Babloo is a contract killer and takes “supari” (contracts) for killing people. He has an inter-state gang for the said purpose. Amit @ Babloo was arrested in FIR No. 62/2006 dated 22.02.2006 registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC at PS Bawana along with his associates including the present petitioner. During the course of investigation of that FIR, it was revealed that the present petitioner, nephew of deceased Jai Prakash, had inimical terms with his uncle due to a dispute over a parcel of land in Bawana. Further investigation revealed that a conspiracy for the murder of Jai Prakash (uncle of the petitioner) had been hatched for which purpose a sum of Rs. 2 lacs in advance had been paid to Amit @ Babloo and the value of the contract to kill was set at Rs. 10 lacs.

3. The evidence collected against the petitioner was that he had engaged the services of Amit @ Babloo and his associates for killing his uncle Jai Prakash with whom he had a dispute and for this purpose, he had paid an advance sum of Rs. 2 lacs. On 19.03.2005, the present petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No. 261/2010 dated 20.03.2006 under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act for illegal possession of an arm registered at PS Nangloi.

4. In the charge-sheet filed, the details of three FIRs pending against the petitioner had been detailed. They are as follow:--

(i) FIR No. 142/2000 dated 20.05.2000 registered under Sections 498-A/406 of the IPC, registered at PS Gannaur.

(ii) FIR No. 62/2006 dated 22.02.2006 registered under Sections 302/34 of the IPC at PS Bawana for contract killing of Jai Prakash and;

(iii) FIR No. 261/2006 dated 20.03.2006 registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act for having been found in the illegal possession of a country made pistol.

5. The foremost submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had engaged the services of Amit @ Babloo and his gang; he was not a member of the so called organized crime syndicate being run by Amit @ Babloo. He was in fact a client who had engaged the services of a professional gang; he thus being neither a member of the organized crime syndicate and nor acting on behalf of the said syndicate, does not qualify to be charge-sheeted for having committed an offence under Section 3 of the MCOCA. To substantiate his argument, attention has been drawn to the definition of “continuing unlawful activity” as contained in Section 2 (1)(d) of the MCOCA. It is pointed out that “organized crime” has been defined under Section 2 (1)(e) and an “organized crime syndicate” is defined under Section 2 (1)(f); submission being reiterated that unless and until the petitioner qualifies either as a member of an organized crime syndicate or is acting on behalf of such a syndicate, he cannot be encompassed within the provisions of the MCOCA. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner points out that the trial Judge also noting the three cases which were pending against the petitioner had thought it fit to note that FIR No. 142/2000 registered under Section 498-A/406 of the IPC was a personal matter; Section 25 of the Arms Act was also punishable with imprisonment up to three years and both these FIRs thus would not be relevant for the purposes of deciding whether the petitioner is guilty of a continuing unlawful activity.

6. Arguments have been refuted. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the present petitioner has a close nexus with the gang of Amit @ Babloo, who was