Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mehul M. Gupta, Adv. Mr. R. P. Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv. Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv.

The petitioner's arguments primarily challenge the validity of the sanctioning process and the sufficiency of the material relied upon to invoke the provisions of MCOCA against the accused, including the appellant. The petitioner contends that the sanctioning authority failed to adequately apply its mind or to fulfill the statutory requirements necessary for sanctioning prosecution under MCOCA (!) . It is argued that the material considered, such as prior criminal cases, confessional statements, and evidence of ongoing unlawful activities, does not sufficiently establish the existence of an organized crime syndicate or the appellant’s active participation in such activities (!) .

Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the procedural safeguards mandated by the statute, such as prior approval and proper documentation of the basis for invoking MCOCA, were not properly adhered to. The petitioner emphasizes that the involvement of the accused in multiple cases with allegations of violence and the alleged gains from unlawful activities do not, in their view, meet the stringent criteria required for invoking the provisions of MCOCA (!) .

The petitioner also challenges the legality of proceeding against the accused, citing that previous acquittals or cases quashed against the appellant should have been considered to assess the ongoing threat or criminal activity. The declaration of the accused as an absconder, in the petitioner’s view, does not automatically justify the invocation of MCOCA without proper procedural compliance or sufficient evidence establishing continued unlawful activities (!) .

Additionally, the petitioner argues that the procedural and substantive conditions for initiating proceedings under MCOCA, including the requirement of demonstrating a pattern of organized crime and violence, have not been properly satisfied. The petitioner contends that the authorities’ actions in sanctioning and prosecuting under MCOCA are not consistent with the statutory framework or constitutional protections, thereby rendering the proceedings liable to be quashed (!) .

In conclusion, the petitioner maintains that the invocation of MCOCA against the accused lacks a proper legal and factual foundation, and that the procedural lapses and insufficient evidence undermine the legality of the proceedings initiated against the appellant (!) .