MCOCA| Necessity Of Lodgment Of Two Crimes In Preceding Ten Years Is Qua Organised Crime Syndicate And Not Against Each Member Of It: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court has observed that, under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOCA”), the necessity of lodgment of two crimes in the preceding 10 years of which cognizance is taken is qua the Organised Crime Syndicate and not against every member of it.
The Court dismissed the appeal and refused to drop charges under the MCOCA against the Construction Contractors allegedly involved in the Organised Crime Syndicate.
The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Shyam C. Chandak observed, “It is not the mandate of law that, against each of the member of an Organised Crime Syndicate, two crimes must be registered for invoking and for applying the provisions of M.C.O.C. Act. The necessity of lodgment of two crimes in preceding 10 years of which cognizance is taken is qua the Organised Crime Syndicate and not against each and every member of it. The said legal position is no more res integra.”
Advocate Nitin A. Sejpal appeared for the Appellants whereas APP AA Takalkar appeared for the Respondent.
An Appeal was filed under Section 12 of the MCOCA impugning the Order passed by the Special Judge rejecting the application for dropping the charges under the MCOCA and for transferring the same to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge.
The father of the informant was assaulted by the Accused persons herein, damaged the household furniture and committed theft as the Accused Persons did not get the construction contract and the Informant’s Father got it. An FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 451, 452, 380, 324, 323, 504, 427, 143, 144, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the crime in the case was committed by the Organised Crime Syndicate with a motive of pecuniary gain and other advantages.
The Court relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Govind Sakharam Ubhe Vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) which had observed, “If within a period of preceding ten years, one charge-sheet has been filed in respect of organized crime committed by the members of a particular crime syndicate, the said charge-sheet can be taken against a member of the said crime syndicate for the purpose of application of the MCOCA against him even if he is involved in one case. The organized crime committed by him will be a part of the continuing unlawful activity of the organized crime syndicate. What is important is the nexus or the link of the person with organized crime syndicate. The link with the `organized crime syndicate' is the crux of the term `continuing unlawful activity'. If this link is not established, that person cannot be roped in.”
The Court did not find substance in the contention of the counsel for the Accused that there were no two crimes registered against the Accused along with the head of the Organized Crime Syndicate and, therefore the provisions of MCOCA cannot be applied.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal as it was sans merits.
Cause Title: Nilesh Anand Pawar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation:2024:BHC-AS:22877-DB)
Appearances:
Appellants: Advocate Nitin A. Sejpal
Respondent: APP AA Takalkar