The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'organized crime' under MCOCA, emphasizing the need for continuing unlawful activity with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or undue economic advantage, and the requirement of violence or threat of violence for the application of MCOCA.

S.P. Garg, J.:--

1. Challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 31.03.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in case FIR No. 71/2009 registered at Police Station Special Cell by which the respondents were discharged of offence under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MCOCA’).

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that Vipin Sharma (R-1) arrested in Case FIR No. 263/08 under Sections 420/406/506/467/471/120-B IPC read with Section 12 Passports Act Police Station Lajpat Nagar was known for his notorious criminal activities and was involved in 22 criminal cases of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, attempt to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation etc. registered at various Police Stations in Delhi, Haryana and Punjab. It was further alleged that he and his associates (R-2 to R-6) collectively ran an ‘organized crime syndicate’ at D-111, Defence Colony, New Delhi and in furtherance of their activities, cheated various persons in different States to gain pecuniary benefits. By their illegal activities, they earned huge wealth in Delhi and NCR. The courts of competent jurisdiction have already taken cognizance of the offences including cases registered vide FIR No. 240/2004 under Section 308/342/420/506/34 IPC PS Defence Colony; FIR No. 595/2005 under Section 406/420/120-B IPC, PS Defence Colony and many others in which the punishment is more than three years against the respondents during the last ten years. Previous criminal prosecutions failed to bring about any reformation in them. Their unabated criminal activities prejudicial to the interest of public peace and tranquility continued. R-1 to R-6 who are related to each other have continued their activities jointly and singly by running the syndicate. From the nefarious acts and designs of the respondents, it is evident that they are desperate criminals and have cheated innocent people. To curb the menace of the ‘organized crime syndicate’ and in order to keep peace and tranquility in the society, a proposal for initiating the investigation under Section 3 MCOCA as extended to Delhi was put up before the competent authority. During the course of investigation and after the arrest of the respondents various pan cards, mobile Sim cards, Visa Debit Cards, passports and fake work Visas were recovered besides other articles including one laptop computer and printer used for making and printing fake visas and other travel documents etc. by R-6 on the direction of R-1 and other syndicate members. The prosecution further alleged that 14 bank accounts of respondents having total transactions ranging from Rs. 1,10,200/- to Rs. 1,83,35,093/- in various banks were found. Initially, Honey Sharma (R-2) avoided her arrest and was declared Proclaimed Offender. During the pendency of the case, R-1 and R-4 planned to flee from judicial custody at Ludhiana. From the details of the cases in which accused persons were involved/wanted/PO, it was evident that the existing law was not sufficient to deliver justice to the victims. Provisions of MCOCA were invoked against them.

3. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondents, the trial court concluded that prima facie, the case under Section 3 MCOCA was not made out for framing of charge against any of the respondents resulting in their discharge with respect to offence under Section 3 of MCOCA. For other offences the respondents were directed to face trial before the regular criminal court. The State has challenged the discharge order in the appeal in question. Vide order dated 30.04.2012, this Court stayed operation of the impugned order.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the impugned discharge order cannot be sustained as the State was not afforded opportunity to lead evidence to prove the allegations including va