TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Special Court under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and acquitted the Respondents of the charges framed against them. The High Court has relying upon several earlier pronouncements on the subject, held that mere proof of filing of charge sheets in the past was not enough to hold the persons accused in such charge sheets to be guilty of the offences of committing organised crime punishable Under Section 3 of MCOCA for such charge sheets satisfy but one of the requirements under the said Act. What is according to the High Court equally important is to prove that the accused were guilty of committing the offence of organised crime by reason of their continuing unlawful activities. The High Court further held that any s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Court and even by the High Court. Recapitulation of the same all over again would, therefore, serve no useful purpose. All that need be mentioned is that the Respondent Shiva @ Shivaji Sonwane, accused in Special Criminal Case No. 1 of 2001 and Mehmood Khan Pathan, accused in Special Case No. 2 of 2001 started off as partners in crimes which they committed with the help of other gangsters in the industrial town of Khaparkheda situate on the outskirts of the city of Nagpur. The gang, in due course, appears to have split into two, one each led by Shivaji Ramaji Sonwane and Mehmood Khan Pathan. 3. The prosecution case is that the two gangs have over ten years prior to the enactment of MCOCA been involved in commission of several crimes whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt made by Shiva Sonwane the rival gangster in which the latter alleged that on 16th March, 2001 the accused had barged into the complainant's house, demanded a gold chain, beat up the complainant's father and set the house on fire. 5. The prosecution version is that PW-13/1, PI Abdul Razzak, Investigating Officer in Crime No. 37 of 2001, had on the basis of his investigation come to the conclusion that Shiva had formed and was heading an organised crime syndicate. He, therefore, prepared a proposal for invocation of the provisions of MCOCA in connection with Crime No. 37/2001 and requested for permission to record information and register a case Under Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of MCOCA. The proposal was forwarded to the Special I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he crimes, the Deputy Superintendent of police filed two separate and independent charge sheets one each against the two gangs for offences punishable Under Section 3(i)(ii) of the MCOCA and Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. 7. The significant feature of the two cases is that for Crimes No. 37 of 2001 and 38 of 2001 the Respondents were separately tried and acquitted on 18th January, 2008 in the case of Shiva and on 28th February, 2006 in the case of Mehmood Khan Pathan. In the said charge sheets, the Respondents were accused of committing offences only under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. For the offences punishable under MCOCA separate and independent charge sheets were filed against the accused persons in which th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad been filed against the Respondents alleging offences punishable with more than three years imprisonment is not enough. As rightly pointed out by the High Court commission of offences prior to the enactment of MCOCA does not by itself constitute an offence under MCOCA. Registration of cases, filing of charge sheets and taking of cognizance by the competent court in relation to the offence alleged to have been committed by the Respondents in the past is but one of the requirements for invocation of Section 3 of the MCOCA. Continuation of unlawful activities is the second and equally important requirement that ought to be satisfied. It is only if an organised crime is committed by the accused after the promulgation of MCOCA that he may, see....