M.N. GILANI, J.

1. This appeal under section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, “MCOCA”) is directed against the order dated 21.08.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Special Court, Pune in Special Case No. 2 of 2007, whereby, the learned Special Judge discharged the respondent-accused for the offence under MCOCA.

2. Special Case No. 2/2007 is arising out of Crime No. 562/2006 registered with the Kothrud Police Station, Pune under sections 302, 307, 143, 148, 149, 120B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, The incident occurred on 14.10.2006. It is alleged that one Sachin Pote and his associates attacked one Sandeep Mohol (since deceased) while latter was proceeding in his Scorpio Jeep. The firearms and other deadly weapons were used by the accused while assaulting the deceased. Sandeep Mohol succumbed to the injuries which resulted in registration of the crime as indicated above.

3. The investigation revealed that the accused are the persons of the organised crime syndicate and therefore, provisions of MCOCA were invoked against them.

4. The respondent submitted an application vide Exh. 99, seeking his discharge from the offence punishable under section 3(i), 3(ii), 3(iii) and 3(iv) of the MCOCA. It was submitted that the material placed on record does not disclose any offence under the provisions of MCOCA. There is no evidence to show that the respondent-accused was at any point of time was a member of the organized crime syndicate. The State resisted this application. The learned Special Judge after considering the rival submissions, held that the material placed on record does not disclose offence punishable under the MCOCA. He therefore, discharged the respondent-accused from the offences punishable under the MCOCA. Being aggrieved, by this order, the State has preferred this appeal.

5. Learned APP submitted that the order of discharge passed by the learned Special Judge is erroneous and inconsistent with the documentary evidence placed on record. According to him there is ample material to show that the respondent-accused is a member of the organized crime syndicate. He alongwith the other is involved in continuing unlawful activity and this is evident from the chargesheets filed against him within preceding period of ten years and that the court has taken cognizance of such offence.

6. Similar submissions were advanced before the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Pune. As regards two previous charge-sheets, one being Sessions Case No. 418 of 2006 under section 395, 143, 147, 148 of the IPC and other being regular Criminal Case No. 120 of 2000 under sections 324, 323, 504 read with 34 of the IPC, the learned Special Judge observed that these offences were not committed by the organized crime syndicate. As regards the allegations in special case no. 02 of 2007, the offence with which the respondent-accused and others have been charged have not been committed with an objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other advantage to the respondent-accused. Therefore, he discharged the respondent-accused.

7. Before we consider the merits of the present case, it would be appropriate to set out certain provisions of the MCOCA, in particular Sections 2(d), 2(e) and 2(f) of the MCOCA as under:-

“Sec. 2(d). “Continuing unlawful activity” means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one chargesheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence”. “Sec.2(e) “Organised crime” means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf