MCOCA - More Than One Charge-Sheet Is Not Required To Be Filed With Respect To Each Accused Person : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that, in MCOCA cases, more than one charge-sheet is not required to be filed with respect to each accused person.

Charge-sheets with respect to the organized crime syndicate are sufficient to fulfil the condition in Section 2(1)(d) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed.

The court also held that the order of approval under Section 23(1)(a) MCOCA need not name every accused person at the outset.

In this case, MCOCA was invoked against various persons alleging that they members of an organized crime syndicate which has engaged in a systematic course of activities for cheating members of the public by conducting the "Mumbai Matka". The Bombay High Court had refused the plea challenging the invocation of MCOCA against the accused.

Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA defines "continuing unlawful activity". It 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 charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence.

One of the contentions raised in this appeal was that, in the preceding ten years, more than one charge-sheet has not been filed in respect of each of the accused. 

"This submission does not hold water. It is settled law that 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."

The bench referred to a Bombay High Court judgment on this issue: Govind Sakharam Ubhe v. State of Maharashtra 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 770.

The order of approval  need not name every accused person at the outset

Another issue raised was regarding the non-naming of accused in the order of approval. In this regard, the court observed:

"The order of approval under Section 23(1)(a) MCOCA need not name every accused person at the outset. Often, limited information is available to the investigating authorities at the time of recording information about the commission of an offence. The involvement of persons other than those named initially may come to light during the course of investigation by the police. In fact, the very purpose of an investigation is to determine whether a crime has been committed and if so, to shed light on the details of the crime including the identity of the perpetrators. This is true of every crime but especially true in the case of organized crime, where an organized crime syndicate may consist of scores of persons involved in unlawful activities in different capacities. 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."

Gambling may be the route through which the accused are abetting the commission of organized crime

The court also rejected the contention that the allegation of engaging in illegal gambling would not sustain the invocation of the penal provisions of Section 3(2) MCOCA. The court noted that 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. It said:

"Although gambling may not, by itself, constitute an organized crime, it may be the route through which the accused are abetting the commission of organized crime. The question of whether the appellants are in fact abetting organized crime in this manner, is to be determined at the stage of trial. Similarly, the question of whether offences under the IPC would attract MCOCA in the present case is to be determined at the stage of trial and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The observation in Lalit Somdatta Nagpal (supra) that some degree of coercion or violence is required to charge an accused under provisions of MCOCA must be read together with Section 2(1)(e) which recognizes that ―other unlawful means‖ may be used while committing organized crime, in addition to coercion and violence."

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