The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requirements for constituting continuing unlawful activity under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 must be satisfied on the date when the crime is committed or detected, and the requirement of more than one charge-sheet pertains to the crime syndicate as a whole and not to the individual member of the crime syndicate accused.

JUDGMENT :

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This judgment has been pronounced through video conferencing.

2. The present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeks quashing of the sanction given for prosecution of the Petitioner, under The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter “Act”) as also proceedings in furtherance to the said sanction.

Submissions of the Petitioner

3. The case of the Petitioner is that an FIR was lodged against the Petitioner, bearing FIR No. 252/2018, on 25thMay 2018, under sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that on the date when the FIR under the Act was registered i.e. on 25th May 2018, there was only one other FIR which had been lodged against the Petitioner - being FIR bearing No. 62/2017. Two other FIRs were used against the Petitioner to justify the grant of sanction to prosecute under the Act. However, in FIR 62/2017, the Petitioner stood acquitted .Thus, he submitted that the ingredients required under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act to prosecute the Petitioner were not fulfilled.

4. Ld. counsel placed reliance upon Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e) and 2(1)(f) of the Act to argue that unless and until it is established on record that there is more than one charge-sheet, within the preceding period of ten years, which are pending against the Petitioner no case under the Act can be registered. He further submitted relying upon the contents of the charge-sheet in this case, that even as per this charge-sheet, the ingredients of Section 3 are not made out, as the charge-sheet itself records that the Petitioner was acquitted in FIR No. 62/2017.

5. It was thereafter submitted that in FIR No. 252/2018 and the charge-sheet which had been framed there under, the only provisions which had been invoked were Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and no provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) had been invoked against the Petitioner.

6. Ld. counsel has thereafter taken this Court through the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahipal Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2014) 11 SCC 282, to argue that procedural requirements have to be satisfied, not after the case is registered under the Act, but before. The satisfaction of the ingredients constituting the offence must exist on the date when the crime is committed or detected. For the invocation of offence of an organised crime, ingredients constituting that offence must exist on the date the crime is.

7. Further, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Madhukar S/o Babu Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra, [Crl. Appeal No. 297/2017 decided by the Bombay High Court on 31st July 2018] where the Court had the occasion to consider a case wherein on the date when the charge-sheet was registered, there was no evidence to show that either the Petitioner was a part of an organized crime syndicate, or that he was involved in activities prohibited by law which are cognizable offences, or that more than one charge-sheet was filed against the Petitioner. The Bombay High Court had, under such circumstances, quashed the case registered under the Act and had transferred the case to the criminal court for proper trial. He, thus, submitted that the sanction was wrongly given for prosecution of the Petitioner under the provision of the Act and pleaded for the court to quash the same. Ld. Counsel further relied upon the judgment of the ld. Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Irfan vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another, 2018 SCC Online Del. 13223.

8. Finally, he concluded by arguing that in the State of Maharashtra vs. Shiva Alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane and Others, (2015) 14 SCC 272, the Supreme Court has again held that for constituting continuing unlawful activity, the charge-sheet should be against the individuals on the date when the case is registered. The Supreme Court in this case had held that registration of cases, filing of charge-sheets and