MCOCA territorial nexus: out-of-state charge-sheets may count, but Delhi prosecution still needs organised crime within the territory.

Charge-sheets filed and cognizance taken by competent Courts outside Delhi may be counted to establish "continuing unlawful activity" under MCOCA, because a restrictive reading would defeat the statute's object and the prior offences may show the syndicate's antecedents. However, prosecution in Delhi still requires a sufficient territorial nexus: an organised crime must be shown to have been committed within Delhi. On the facts noted, the material did not disclose organised crime in Delhi or the required statutory foundation, so MCOCA could not be sustained there.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether charge sheets filed in competent Courts outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi can be taken into account for constituting a "continuing unlawful activity" under MCOCA; (ii) Whether prosecution under MCOCA can be sustained in the absence of an organised crime having been committed within Delhi.

Issue (i): Whether charge sheets filed in competent Courts outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi can be taken into account for constituting a "continuing unlawful activity" under MCOCA

Analysis: The definition of continuing unlawful activity requires more than one charge-sheet before a competent Court within the preceding ten years and cognizance of such offences. The expression "competent Court" was construed in light of the object of MCOCA and the doctrine of territorial nexus. Charge-sheets filed in other States were held relevant because they disclosed antecedents of the organised crime syndicate and had a real connection with the prosecution launched in Delhi. A restrictive reading confining the expression to Courts in Delhi alone would defeat the statutory object.

Conclusion: Charge-sheets filed and taken cognizance of by competent Courts outside Delhi can be taken into account for the purpose of constituting continuing unlawful activity.

Issue (ii): Whether prosecution under MCOCA can be sustained in the absence of an organised crime having been committed within Delhi

Analysis: Although out-of-Delhi charge-sheets may be relied upon to establish antecedents, the Court held that an organised crime activity within Delhi remains necessary for invoking MCOCA in Delhi. On the material before it, FIR No. 122 of 2010 did not satisfy the statutory requirements of a cognizable offence punishable with at least three years, and FIR No. 69 of 2007 did not disclose organised crime within Delhi or any property of the respondents in Delhi. In the absence of such territorial basis, prosecution under MCOCA could not stand.

Conclusion: Prosecution under MCOCA cannot be sustained without an organised crime being committed within Delhi.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed notwithstanding acceptance of the broader interpretation of "competent Court", because the essential territorial foundation for proceeding under MCOCA in Delhi was absent on the facts.

Ratio Decidendi: For MCOCA, charge-sheets from competent Courts outside the local territory may be counted to establish continuing unlawful activity, but prosecution in the forum territory still requires a sufficient territorial nexus through an organised crime committed within that territory.

---