TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 1180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., J. 1. In these special leave petitions, Mahipal Singh figures as an accused. He was initially named as an accused in Hasan Ganj, Lucknow P.S. Case No. 151 of 2005. This case was registered on 26th of May, 2005 and after investigation the accused Mahipal Singh was charge-sheeted on 26th of April, 2006. On the basis of a report given by Inspector Manoj Kumar, another case E0005 was registered against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short "CBI"), on 2nd of June, 2011. Further, on the basis of the report given by the same Inspector, four other cases i.e. E0007, E0008, E0009 and E0010 were registered on 28th of July, 2011 by the CBI. All these cases excepting E0009 related to rigging of results of various entrance examinatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....011. Accused Mahipal Singh was further charge-sheeted in E0009 and E0010 and by order dated 14th of January, 2012, the DIG, CBI granted approval for invoking Section 3 of MCOCA against him. Accused Mahipal challenged the orders dated 18th of October, 2011 and 14th of January, 2012 passed by the DIG, CBI invoking Section 3 of MCOCA in the four cases detailed above in four separate writ petitions filed before the Delhi High Court. The investigating agency secured Mahipal Singh's remand under MCOCA from the Designated Court in E0006 and E0007 by separate orders passed on 30th of November, 2011. Accused Mahipal Singh challenged those orders of remand in two separate writ petitions. Thus, altogether accused Mahipal Singh filed six writ petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se shall not be governed by the provisions of MCOCA. However, when confronted that no such question was raised before the High Court or for that matter, in the special leave petition, he gave up this submission. 5. While assailing the order, Mr. Subramaniam has made a large number of submissions, but as the accused is to succeed on a very short point, we deem it inexpedient either to incorporate or answer those submissions. Mr. Subramaniam submits, even if it is assumed for the sake of these appeals that the allegations made against the accused satisfy all other ingredients of continuing unlawful activity, the requirements of submission of more than one charge-sheets before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years for o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of specified nature were filed and the competent court had taken cognizance of the same. According to her, the ingredients of the offence have to be satisfied with reference to the date the DIG gave approval for invoking Section 3 of MCOCA and not on the date the offence was committed or came to be known. 7. Section 3 of MCOCA is the penal provision which provides for punishment for organised crime. "Organised crime" has been defined under Section 2(1)(e) of MCOCA and the same reads as follows: 2. Definitions- (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- XXX (e) "organised crime" means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....involved in activities prohibited by law which are cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more and in respect thereof, more than one charge-sheets have been filed against such person before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years and that court has taken cognizance of such offence. 10. We have given our most anxious consideration to the rival submissions and in the light of what we have observed above, the submissions advanced by Mr. Subramaniam commend us. It is trite that to bring an accused within the mischief of the penal provision, ingredients of the offence have to be satisfied on the date the offence was committed. Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India permits conviction of a pers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y be a case in which the investigating agency does not know exactly the date on which the crime was committed; in our opinion, in such a case the date on which the offence comes to the notice of the investigating agency, the ingredients constituting the offence have to be satisfied. In our opinion, an act which is not an offence on the date of its commission or the date on which it came to be known, cannot be treated as an offence because of certain events taking place later on. We may hasten to add here that there may not be any impediment in complying with the procedural requirement later on in case the ingredients of the offence are satisfied, but satisfying the requirement later on to bring the act within the mischief of penal provision....