Kavitha Lankesh vs State of Karnataka & Ors.

HELD: 1.1 The purport of section 24, upon its textual construct, posits that information regarding commission of an offence of organized crime under the 2000 Act can be recorded by a police officer only upon obtaining prior approval of the police officer not below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General of Police. That is the quintessence for recording of offence of organized crime under the Act by a police officer. What is crucial in this provision is the factum of recording of offence of organized crime and not of recording of a crime against an offender as such. It is cardinal to observe that only after registration of FIR, investigation for the concerned offence would proceed — in which the details about the specific role and the identity of the persons involved in such offence can be unravelled and referred to in the chargesheet to be filed before the competent Court. [Paras 19, 20][323-D-F, H; 324-A]

1.2 Concededly, the original FIR registered in the present case was for an ordinary crime of murder against unknown persons. At the relevant time, the material regarding offence having been committed by an organized crime syndicate was not known. That information came to the fore only after investigation of the offence by the SIT, as has been mentioned in the report submitted to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City for seeking his prior approval to invoke Section 3 of the 2000 Act. Once again, at this stage, the Commissioner of Police had focussed only on the factum of information regarding the commission of organized crime by an organized crime syndicate and on being prima facie satisfied about the presence of material on record in that regard, rightly proceeded to accord prior approval for invoking Section 3 of the 2000 Act. The prior approval was not for registering crime against individual offenders as such, but for recording of information regarding commission of an offence of organized crime under the 2000 Act. Therefore, the specific role of the concerned accused is not required to be and is not so mentioned in the stated prior approval. That aspect would be unravelled during the investigation, after registration of offence of organized crime. Notably, the High Court, without analysing the material presented along with chargesheet on the basis of which cognizance has been taken by the competent Court including against the writ petitioner-M, concerning commission of organized crime by the organized crime syndicate of which he is allegedly a member, committed manifest error and exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the chargesheet filed before the competent Court qua the writ petitioner-M regarding offences under Section 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the 2000 Act. [Paras 21, 22][324-B-G]

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Brijesh Singh @ Arun Kumar & Anr. (2017) 10 SCC 779 : [2017] 11 SCR 899; State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal & Anr. (2007) 4 SCC 171 : [2007] 2 SCR 473 – distinguished.

2.1 The fact that the Investigating Agency was unable to collect material during investigation against the writ petitionerM for offence under Section 3(1) of the 2000 Act, does not mean that the information regarding commission of a crime by him within the meaning of Section 3(2), 3(3) or 3(4) of the 2000 Act cannot be recorded and investigated against him as being a member of the organized crime syndicate and/or having played role of an abettor, being party to the conspiracy to commit organized crime or of being a facilitator, as the case may be. For the latter category of offence, it is not essential that more than two chargesheets have been filed against the person so named, before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years and that court had taken cognizance of such offence. That requirement applies essentially to an offence punishable only under Section 3(1) of the 2000 Act. [Para 23][325-D-F]

2.2 As regards offences punishable under Section 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) or 3(5), it can proceed against any person sans such previous offence registered against him, if there is material to indicate that he happens to be a member of the organized crime syndicate who had committed the offences in question and it can be established that there is material about his nexus with the accused who is a member of the organized crime syndicate. [Para 24] [325-G; 326-A]

2.3 The High Court in the present case was essentially concerned with the legality of prior approval granted by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City dated 14.08.2018 for invoking Section 3 of the 2000 Act and thus, to allow recording of information regarding commission of offence of organized crime under the 2000 Act and to investigate the same. While considering the proposal for grant of prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2000 Act, what is essential is the satisfaction of the competent authority that the material placed before him does reveal presence of credible information regarding commission of an offence of organized crime by the organized crime syndicate and, therefore, allow invocation of Section 3 of the 2000 Act. As a consequence of which, investigation of that crime can be taken forward by the Investigating Agency and chargesheet can be filed before the concerned Court and upon grant of sanction by the competent authority under Section 24(2), the competent Court can take cognizance of the case. [Para 25][326-G; 327-A-C]

3.1 At the stage of granting prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2000 Act, therefore, the competent authority is not required to wade through the material placed by the Investigating Agency before him along with the proposal for grant of prior approval to ascertain the specific role of each accused. The competent authority has to focus essentially on the factum whether the information/material reveals the commission of a crime which is an organized crime committed by the organized crime syndicate. In that, the prior approval is qua offence and not the offender as such. As long as the incidents referred to in earlier crimes are committed by a group of persons and one common individual was involved in all the incidents, the offence under the 2000 Act can be invoked. [Para 26][327-D-F]

3.2 This Court in Prasad Shrikant Purohit in paragraphs 61 and 98 expounded that at the stage of taking cognizance, the competent Court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender. This analogy applies even at the stage of grant of prior approval for invocation of provisions of the 2000 Act. The prior sanction under Section 24(2), however, may require enquiry into the specific role of the offender in the commission of organized crime, namely, he himself singly or jointly or as a member of the organized crime syndicate indulged in commission of the stated offences so as to attract the punishment provided under Section 3(1) of the 2000 Act. However, if the role of the offender is merely that of a facilitator or of an abettor as referred to in Section 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) or 3(5), the requirement of named person being involved in more than two chargesheets registered against him in the past is not relevant. Regardless of that, he can be proceeded under the 2000 Act, if the material collected by the Investigating Agency reveals that he had nexus with the accused who is a member of the organized crime syndicate or such nexus is related to the offence in the nature of organized crime. Thus, he need not be a person who had direct role in the commission of an organized crime as such. [Para 26][327-F-H; 328-A-B]

4. A priori, the conclusion reached by the High Court in partly allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-M, is manifestly wrong and cannot be countenanced. In any case, the High Court has completely glossed over the crucial fact that the writ petition was filed only after the sanction was accorded by the competent authority under Section 24(2) and more so cognizance was also taken by the competent Court of the offence of organized crime committed by the members of organized crime syndicate including the writ petitioner - to which there was no challenge. The High Court has not analysed the efficacy of these developments as disentitling the writ petitioner belated relief claimed in respect of prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2000 Act. Further, the High Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the chargesheet filed against the writ petitioner-M for offences punishable under Section 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the 2000 Act at this stage [of prior approval under Section 24(1)(a)]. [Para 27][328-C-E]

Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294 : [2005] 3 SCR 345 – relied on.

Muniraju R. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. Criminal Petition No. 391 of 2019 decided on 05.02.2019 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Vinod G. Asrani v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 3 SCC 633 : [2007] 2 SCR 1023; John D’Souza v. Assistant

Commissioner of Police Manu/MH/0797/2007; Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2015) 7 SCC 440 : [2015] 8 SCR 575; Govind

Sakharam Ubhe v. State of Maharashtra 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 770; Digvijay Saroha v. State 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10324 – referred to.