MCOCA - Confession Recorded By Additional Superintendent Of Police Admissible In Evidence: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a confession recorded by an Additional Superintendent of Police [Addl. SP] is admissible in evidence under Section 18 of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,1999 [MCOCA].

The posts of SP, Addl. SP, and DCP all fall within the same rank as they exercise similar functions and powers and operate within similar spheres of authority, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed.

Section 18  of MCOCA reads as follows: Notwithstanding anything in the Code or in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but subject to the provisions of this section, a confession made by a person before a police officer not below the rank of the Superintendent of Police and recorded by such police officer either in writing or on any mechanical devices like cassettes, tapes or sound tracks from which sounds or images can be reproduced, shall be admissible in the trial of such person or co-accused, abettor or conspirator.

In this case, the Bombay High Court in the impugned judgment had held that the confessions recorded by the Addl. SP are admissible because Addl. SPs are in the same rank as Superintendents of Police, in terms of clause 25(2) of the Bombay Police Manual 1959. Before the Apex Court, the appellants contended that if the legislature intended to include Addl. SPs within the ambit of Section 18 MCOCA, it would have done so expressly, as it was cognizant of the difference between various ranks while enacting MCOCA. According to appellants, almost all the confessions in connection with the present FIR were inadmissible, having been recorded by an Addl. SP. On the other hand, the state contended that ranks and posts have distinct connotations and that an Addl. SP is of the rank of an SP and is vested with all the powers, duties and functions of an SP. Further, Section 18(1) MCOCA does not contemplate any specific authorisation of a police officer not below the rank of SP for the purpose of recording confessions, it was contended.

The issue thus considered in this case was whether a confession recorded by an Addl. SP under Section 18 MCOCA can be proved as against the accused?

Referring to various materials and documents placed on record, the bench observed:

It is our view that the expression "rank" must be understood as a class or category which encompasses multiple posts. The posts of SP, Addl. SP, and DCP all fall within the same rank as they exercise similar functions and powers and operate within similar spheres of authority. Every person within a particular rank will not be of the same seniority. Officers of the same rank may have been in service for a different number of years. At times, this may even bear on the post to which they are appointed but their rank remains undisturbed. A difference in the seniority of a particular officer is not the same as a difference in their ranks. The insignia on officers' uniforms denote, in this case, their seniority as well as their designations.

Observing thus, the bench upheld the High Court judgment by dismissing the appeal. Yet another issue dealt in this judgment is about the validity of invocation of MCOCA. The same will be dealt in a separate report.

Case details

Zakir Abdul Mirajkar vs State of Maharashtra | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 707 | CrA 1125 of 2022 | 24 August 2022 | Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant

Counsel: Senior Advocates Mr. Amit Desai, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Mr. Abad Ponda, Mr. V. Giri, Mr. Pradeep Rai, and Mr. ANS Nadkarni, for appellants, Sr. Adv Raja Thakare for State of Maharashtra

Headnotes

Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,1999 ; Section 18 - Confession recorded by an Additional Superintendent of Police [Addl. SP] is admissible in evidence - The posts of SP, Addl. SP, and DCP all fall within the same rank as they exercise similar functions and powers and operate within similar spheres of authority. (Para 63

Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,1999 ; Section 2(1)(d) - More than one charge sheet is required to be filed in respect of the organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each person who is alleged to be a member of such a syndicate. (Para 79)

Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,1999 ;  Section 23(1)(a) - The order of approval need not name every accused person at the outset- Section 23(1)(a) MCOCA speaks of recording information about the commission of an offence of organized crime, and not of recording information about the offender. The competent authority may record information under Section 23(1)(a) once it is satisfied that an organized crime has been committed by an organized crime syndicate. (Para 72)

Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,1999 ; Section 3(2) - Those accused of abetting the commission of organized crime need not themselves be charged with committing a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of at least three years. They need only be abetting those who are guilty of committing a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of at least three years, which offence amounts to an organized crime.  (Para 76)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment