MCOCA requires proof of post-Act organised crime and continuing unlawful activity, not just prior charge-sheets and cognizance.

MCOCA liability could not rest solely on prior charge-sheets and cognizance, because the statute also required proof of continuing unlawful activity and commission of organised crime after the Act came into force. The Court noted that the accused had to be shown to have continued unlawful acts using violence, intimidation, coercion or other unlawful means for pecuniary or other advantage. As the predicate offences ended in acquittal and no post-Act offence was proved, the essential statutory ingredients were not established, and the conviction under the Act was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents' conviction under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 could be sustained merely on proof of prior charge-sheets and cognizance, without proof of continuing unlawful activity and commission of an organised crime after the Act came into force.

Analysis: The prior filing of multiple charge-sheets and the taking of cognizance satisfied only one part of the statutory requirement. Liability under the Act also required proof that the accused continued unlawful activities and committed organised crime after the promulgation of the Act, by use of violence, intimidation, coercion or other unlawful means for pecuniary or other advantage. The acquittals in the predicate offences, and the absence of proof of the post-Act offence, meant that the essential ingredients of the statute were not established.

Conclusion: The conviction under the Act was unsustainable and the respondents were entitled to succeed.

---