Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,1999 – ss.2(1)(f), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5), 18, 23 and 427 – Penal Code 1860 – ss. 143, 147, 149, 395, 307, 353, 332, 155, 109, 324, 323 and 427 – Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act 1887 – s. 4 and 5 –Maharashtra Prohibition Act 1949 – s.65(e) – Bombay Police Act 1951 – s. 37 – Interpretation of the provisions of s.18 MCOCA – Case of the prosecution was that the appellants are members of an organized crime syndicate which has engaged in systematic course of activities for cheating members of public by conducting the ‘Mumbai Matka’ (Gambling den) – Police personnel raided one of the Matka den – FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made by one of the members of raiding party – During the course of investigation, the Additional Superintended of Police recorded the confession made by many of the accused including the appellants – The competent authority sanctioned the prosecution of the appellants for the offences under the MCOCA – Appellants and other accused were arrested – The appellants instituted writ petition before the High Court for quashing of the FIR, which was dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, the appellant submitted that : (i) Confession recorded by an Additional Superintended of Police (Addl. SP) u/s 18 MCOCA cannot be proved against the accused (As s.18(1) provides for, confession made by a police officer “not below the rank of the superintendent of Police” shall be admissible in trial) and (ii) The provisions of MCOCA have not been validly invoked – Held:– (i) The expression “rank” must be understood as a class or category which encompasses multiple posts – The posts of SP, Addl. SP ,and DCP all fall within the same rank – (ii) The approval order under s.23(1)(a) MCOCA is with respect to the offence and not the offender – Though illegal gambling is not an organized crime but it may be route through which the accused were abetting the commission of organized crime, therefore the appellants may be charged with some offences punishable under MCOCA in relation to the charge of illegal gambling – Further, more than one chargesheet is not required to be filed with respect to each accused.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. It is view of this court that the expression “rank” must be understood as a class or category which encompasses multiple posts. The posts of SP, Addl. SP, and DCP all fall within the same rank as they exercise similar functions and powers and operate within similar spheres of authority. Every person within a particular rank will not be of the same seniority. Officers of the same rank may have been in service for a different number of years. At times, this may even bear on the post to which they are appointed but their rank remains undisturbed. A difference in the seniority of a particular officer is not the same as a difference in their ranks. The insignia on officers‘ uniforms denote, in this case, their seniority as well as their designations. [Para 63][197F-G]
2. The order of approval under Section 23(1)(a) MCOCA need not name every accused person at the outset. Often, limited information is available to the investigating authorities at the time of recording information about the commission of an offence. The involvement of persons other than those named initially may come to light during the course of investigation by the police. In fact, the very purpose of an investigation is to determine whether a crime has been committed and if so, to shed light on the details of the crime including the identity of the perpetrators. This is true of every crime but especially true in the case of organized crime, where an organized crime syndicate may consist of scores of persons involved in unlawful activities in different capacities. Section 23(1)(a) MCOCA speaks of recording information about the commission of an offence of organized crime, and not of recording information about the offender. The competent authority may record information under Section 23(1)(a) once it is satisfied that an organized crime has been committed by an organized crime syndicate. [Para 72][201-D-G]
3. The appellants‘ submission that the allegation of engaging in illegal gambling would not sustain the invocation of the penal provisions of Section 3(2) MCOCA is simplistic. Although gambling may not, by itself, constitute an organized crime, it may be the route through which the accused are abetting the commission of organized crime. The question of whether the appellants are in fact abetting organized crime in this manner, is to be determined at the stage of trial. Similarly, the question of whether offences under the IPC would attract MCOCA in the present case is to be determined at the stage of trial and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The appellants have argued that in the preceding ten years, more than one chargesheet has not been filed in respect of each of them. This submission does not hold water. It is settled law that more than one charge sheet is required to be filed in respect of the organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each person who is alleged to be a member of such a syndicate. Other courts, too, have held that persons who are alleged to be members of an organized crime syndicate need not have more than one charge-sheet filed against them in an individual capacity. Rather, charge-sheets with respect to the organized crime syndicate are sufficient to fulfil the condition in Section 2(1)(d). [Para 77, 79][204-E-F, H; 205-A, GH] State of Maharashtra v. Keshav Bhaurao Mulik,
Criminal Appeal No 835 of 1974; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 : [1994] 2 SCR 375; State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh, (2008) 1 SCC 601 : [2007]
11 SCR 251; State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed (2013) 12 SCC 17 : [2013] 5 SCR 128; Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 13 SCC
1 : [2013] 15 SCR 1; Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2002) 8 SCC 73 : [2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 247; Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441 : [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 659; Nyadar Singh v. Union of India (1988) 4 SCC 170 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 546; State of Maharashtra v. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal (2007) 4 SCC 171 : [2007] 2 SCR 473; Vinod G. Asrani v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 3 SCC 633 : [2007] 2 SCR 1023; Kavitha Lankesh v. State of Karnataka 2021 SCC OnLine SC 956; Govind Sakharam Ubhe v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 770 – Referred to.
State Inspector of Police Vishakhapatnam v. Surya Sankaram Karri (2006) 7 SCC 172 : [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 229; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chunni Lal (2009)
12 SCC 649 : [2009] 6 SCR 145; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Babbu Rathore (2020) 2 SCC 577 : 2020
(1) JT 243; State of Punjab v. Hardial Singh, (2009)
15 SCC 106 : [2009] 8 SCR 559 – held inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.