Gokul Bhagaji Patil vs State Of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(SC) 1265

2006(9) Supreme 606
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan and D.K. Jain, JJ.
Gokul Bhagaji Patil - Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1287 of 2006
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 1572 of 2006)
Decided on 8-12-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : A.V. Savant, Sr. Advocate, S.V. Deshpande, Pramit Saxena and Mrs. Anuradha Rustogi, Advocates.
For the Respondents : A. Sharan, A.S.G., Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Vikas Sharma, Ms. Sunita Sharma (for P. Parmeswaran) and V.N. Raghupathy, Advocates.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) - Section 21(4) - Appellant as Investigating Officer in a crime of printing of fake revenue and postal stamps by a gang was found to have not sealed the premises where counterfeit stamps and stamp-paper were being printed nor seized the machines and ensured that “Telgi” king pin of Organized Crime Syndicate remained at large to continue his activities between 1999 to 2002 till “Telgi” was arrested - Appellant, as senior Police Inspector was arrested on 18-10-2003 - Trial Court rejected his bail application observing that there was no reason to believe that appellant was not guilty of offences u/s 3(2) and 24 of MCOCA - Order was affirmed by High Court - Appeal - Purported acts of omission and commission on part of appellant may not per se being his case within ambit of Section 3(2) of MCOCA but could attract Section 24 of MCOCA - Appellant found deserving to be released on bail keeping in view that he was in custody for over three years and maximum sentence contemplated u/s 24 of the Act.
       Held : The factors which have weighed with the High Court for rejecting the appellants plea of innocence and his bail application are; (i) the printing press and other machinery belonging to Telgi was not sealed; (ii) opinion regarding the counterfeit nature of the seized stamps was not obtained from Indian Security Press, Nashik; (iii) instead of granting permission to the police party which had searched the press to go ahead with further investigations, the police party was recalled without effecting the seizure; (iv) though the police officials, including the appellant, were aware of the serious lapses on their part, yet no attempt was made to correct them, with the result that the prime accused Telgi continued his illegal activities between 29.8.1999 to June, 2002; (v) by not arresting the prime accused Telgi, he allowed the Organised Crime Syndicate to continue its activities and (vi) though he had wide powers to stop the unlawful activities, he did not use them conscienously and in public interest and allowed the Organised Crime Syndicate to continue their activities unhampered and unobstructed.(Para 12)
       We have considered the matter in the light of the inferences drawn by the High Court from the material on record and the role attributed to the appellant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the purported acts of omission and commission on the part of the appellant may not per se bring his case within the ambit of Section 3(2) of MCOCA. Nevertheless, the aforementioned circumstances do tend to indicate that as a public servant he had failed to take lawful measures under MCOCA, attracting the provisions of Section 24 of MCOCA. Having reached this conclusion and bearing in mind the fact that the appellant has been in judicial custody for over three years, the maximum period of sentence contemplated under Section 24 of MCOCA, we are of the view the appellant deserves to be released on bail.(Para 14)

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain, J. - Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Order, dated 1.2.2006, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, affirming the order passed by Special Judge, Pune, in exercise of powers conferred under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short "MCOCA"), whereby the application filed by the appellant for grant of bail was rejected.

3. The appellant, a former Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mumbai was posted as a senior Police Inspector at Mira Road, Police Station, Thane District, during the period from 2.6.1999 to 13.5.2000.

4. On or about 15.8.1999, on the basis of some information about printing of fake revenue and postal stamps by a gang, received by Mira Road Police Station, under the charge of the appellant, raids were conducted at certain places. As a result thereof some persons were arrested and case (C.R. No. 274 of 1999) under Sections 257, 260, 420, 467, 468 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 55 of the Indian Postal Act, 1898 was registered against them.

5. It appears that an inquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Thane (Rural) in the manner in which investigation in C.R. No. 274 of 1999 was conducted by the appellant and his team, which revealed that although the printing press, situated at Mulund and Bora Bazar, Mumbai, where counterfeit stamps and stamp papers were being printed had been identified but the appellant and his Sub-Inspector Kakade (since dead), incharge of the case, neither sealed the said premises nor seized the machines; they ensured that Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi (hereinafter referred to as "Telgi"), the Kingpin of the Organised Crime Syndicate and the prime accused was not arrested and remained at large till he was arrested by Karnataka Police and the counterfeit stamps seized in the case were not sent for examination to the Indian Security Press. In nutshell, the allegation against the appellant is that being a public servant he not only rendered help and support in the commission of Organised Crime as defined in clause (e) of Section 2 of MCOCA, he knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted the activities of the Organised Crime Syndicate till 7.6.2002, thereby enabling them to carry on their activities for almost three years. Thus, by helping and facilitating the Organised Crime Syndicate of Telgi in continuing unlawful activities and deliberately abstaining from taking lawful measures under the MCOCA against Telgi and his syndicate, he has committed offences punishable under Sections 3(2) and 24 of the MCOCA.

6. Based on these investigations a case (C.R.No.135 of 2002) was registered against the appellant and some other persons at Bund Garden Police Station, Pune. The appellant, who by then had been promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Police was arrested on 18.10.2003 by the Special Investigation Team, constituted by the State of Maharashtra. Since then he is in judicial custody.

7. Taking into consideration the gravity of charges levelled against the appellant and, inter alia, observing that there is no reason to believe that the appellant is not guilty of the offences, alleged against him, as contemplated under Section 21(4)(b) of MCOCA, the Special Judge dismissed his bail application. This order having been affirmed by the High Court, the appellant is before us.

8. Mr. A.V. Savant, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has strenuously urged that in the charge-sheet filed against the appellant there are no allegations that he had indulged in "continuing unlawful activities" within the meaning of Section 2(i)(d) of MCOCA and therefore his case does not fall within the ambit of Section 3 of MCOCA. Learned senior counsel submits that no inference can be drawn from the material on record that the appellant was a party to the conspiracy or had abetted commission or facilitation of the crime with which Telgi or other co-accused were associated and contends

Click Here to Read the rest of this document