[MCOCA] HC expounds that if requirement of continuing unlawful activity’ as a member of an organised crime syndicate is not met, conviction under Sec 3 may not be upheld, Read Judgement

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court expounded that for the purpose of registration of FIR and criminal case under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOCA”) , the registration of FIR meeting the requirement of Section 2(1) (d), (e) and (f) of MCOCA coupled with the fact that the concerned Court has taken cognizance, is to be satisfied.

It was ruled that what is important is whether the commission of an offence by the accused would constitute ‘continuing unlawful activity’ as a member of an organised crime syndicate and so long as the said requirement is not met, the conviction under Section 3 of MCOCA may not be upheld.

Brief Facts:

The present petition has been filed to challenge the order vide which the Petitioner’s application for summoning witnesses in defence evidence, in FIR under Section 3(2) & 3(5) of MCOCA was declined.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

It was contended that the witness was sought to be examined to prove that the Petitioner had bonafide source of income, and the assets as claimed by the prosecution are not proceeds of crime.

Contentions of the State:

It was argued that for purpose of registering FIR under MCOCA, it should only meet requirements of Section 2(1) (d), (e) and (f) of MCOCA.

Observations of the Court:

It was expounded that for the purpose of registration of FIR and criminal case under MCOCA, the registration of FIR meeting the requirement of Section 2(1) (d), (e) and (f) of MCOCA coupled with the fact that the concerned Court has taken cognizance, is to be satisfied.

However, for the purpose of final adjudication, summoning of judgments passed in respective FIRs relied upon for invocation of MCOCA would enable the accused/petitioner to establish or show that the offences alleged in aforesaid FIRs were not committed as a member of an ‘organised crime syndicate’ or on behalf of such syndicate with the objective of inter alia gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other advantages for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency, even if the acquittal or discharge in the aforesaid cases may not be relevant for purpose of Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA.

What is important is whether the commission of an offence by the accused would constitute ‘continuing unlawful activity’ as a member of an organised crime syndicate and so long as the said requirement is not met, the conviction under Section 3 of MCOCA may not be upheld.

The decision of the Court:

It was held that the Accused is not precluded from summoning the relevant witnesses in his defence. Accordingly, the petition was disposed.

Case Title: Jamal Ranjha v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Case No.: CRL.M.C. 6128/2024

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr.Akshay Bhandari, Mr.Anmol Sachdeva, Ms.Megha Saroa, Mr.Kusal Kumar and Mr.Janak Raj Ambawat

Advocates for State: Advs. Mr.Aman Usman, APP for State with Mr.Sushanth Choudhary, Ms.Sunita Farswan, Mr.G.R. Dhir, Mr.Akshay Choudhary, Mr.Varun Sharma, Mr.Rahul and Mr.Arun Sanwal