Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Vijay Mann @ Kapil - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Crl. M.C. 1625 of 2020 & Crl. M.As. 10379-80 of 2020
Decided On : 18-12-2020
Prosecution under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act requires multiple FIRs relating to the organized crime syndicate as a whole, not just the individual; procedural criteria must be met on the date of the offense.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 - Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e), 2(1)(f), 3, 4, and 23(1)(a) - Quashing of prosecution sanction - Petitioner challenged the validity of the sanction for prosecution under the Act, claiming insufficient grounds as only one FIR existed at the time of sanction and he had been acquitted in a related case - The court emphasized that involvement in organized crime requires more than one charge sheet relating to continuing unlawful activity - It was established that the syndicate had numerous cases against it, satisfying the requirements of the Act - The rationale outlined in preceding Supreme Court cases was reiterated, article clear that procedural requirements should be satisfied on the date of commission, supporting the prosecution's position - The petition was dismissed, affirming that the sanction was properly granted. (Paras 18, 24, 28-35)
(B) The court reiterated that the 'organized crime syndicate' criterion focuses on the group rather than individual members; multiple FIRs can relate to the syndicate as a whole rather than the specific actions of the accused. (Paras 26, 29-30)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of sanction for prosecution under mcoca. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on inadequacy of evidence for prosecution. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. respondent's reliance on co-accused and systemic crime syndicate. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. legal issues and decisions relevant for mcoca. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. legal interpretation of organized crime requirements. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. evidence supporting organized crime syndicate involvement. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. conclusion on the validity of sanction under mcoca. (Para 34) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. This judgment has been pronounced through video conferencing.
2. The present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 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 25th May 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 v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., [(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 v. The 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 th
