Possession of unaccounted property alone does not confirm organized crime status without evidence of unlawful ongoing activity.

O R D E R

Dated this the 23^rd day of July, 2025 Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 9 in Crime No.784 of 2024 registered at the Areakkode Police Station for offences under Sections 111 (3) and 111(7) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , now pending as S.C No.331 of 2025 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri.

2. The crime was registered after the police conducted a search in a building in Ward No.9 of Kuzhimanna Grama Panchayath and seized cash amounting to Rs.30,47,300/- along with calculators, paper cutting machines and two wheelers used by petitioners 2 to 9. On being questioned, petitioners 2 to 9 allegedly told the police that the 1^st petitioner had entrusted the money with them for distributing to various persons.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that in order to attract the alleged offences, a ‘continuing unlawful activity’ should have been committed by an ‘organized crime syndicate’. Referring to explanation (i) to Section 111 (1), it is submitted that, ‘“organized crime syndicate” means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or jointly, as a syndicate or gang indulge in any continuing unlawful activity.’ Going by explanation (ii) to Section 111 (1), continuing unlawful activity occurs when one or more charge sheets are filed before a competent court against the members of the crime syndicate. It is contended that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents and there is no material to show that they had indulged in continuing unlawful activity.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the unlawful activity committed by the petitioners falls within the definition of “economic offence” under Section 111 (1) explanation (iii) and to attract the offence under Section 111 (7), a person need only be in possession of movable or immovable property which he cannot satisfactorily account for.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel on both sides, I am of the definite opinion that the contentions now urged cannot be decided in exercise of the inherent power vested with this Court. It is settled law that for exercising the power under Section 528 of BNSS, the High Court should not conduct a mini trial or microscopic scrutiny of documents. Moreover, the petitioners have an effective remedy of moving the trial court for discharge.

The Crl.M.C is hence closed, without prejudice to the petitioners’ right to move for discharge before the trial court and with a direction to the court below to pass a reasoned order on the discharge petition, if filed. Sd/-