Vinod Chandru Hosamani S/O ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3066 Kant

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                       DHARWAD BENCH


           DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022


                           BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


            WRIT PETITION NO.103607/2021 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

VINOD S/O.CHANDRU HOSAMANI
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
SOMAVARAPET GOKAK,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

                                                ...PETITIONER.

(BY SHRI RANGANATH REDDY R, ADVOCATE.)


AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
     HOME DEPARTMENT,
     2ND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
     BENGALURU-560001

2.   DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR
     GENERAL OF POLICE,
     KARNATAKA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
     BENGALURU-560001

3.   THE ADDISTIONAL DIRECTOR
     GENERAL OF POLICE
     BENGALURU, KARNATAKA
                               2




4.   THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
     OF POLICE
     BELAGAVI 590001

5.   THE STATION HOUSE OFICER
     GOKAK POLICE STATION,
     BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA 590001

6.   DEEPAK S/O.SRIKANTH INGALIGA
     AGE: 22 YEARS,
     R/O.AADIJAMBHAVA NAGAR, GOKAK,
     TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

                                               ...RESPONDENTS.

(BY SHRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP, FOR R.1 TO R.5;
SHRI AVINASH M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE, FOR R.6.)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, READ WITH SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO:

      A)    ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
WRIT QUASHING THE SANCTION ORDER DATED 27/10/2020 PASSED
BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT HEREIN IN ORDER NO.KA AND SU-
2/52/2020-21 BENGALURU THEREBY PASSING AN ORDER OF
APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 24(1)(A) OF THE KARNATAKA CONTROL
OF ORGANIZED CRIMES ACT, 2000, TO INVOKE SECTION 3(1)(I),
3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5), AND 4 OF THE KCOCA ACT IN CRIME
NO.72/2020 REGISTERED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 144, 147, 148,
150, 341, 302, 120(B), 212, 201, 109, 188, 504, 506, 115 READ
WITH SECTION 34, 35, 37, 149 OF IPC, SECTION 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S),
3(2)(V) 3(2)(VA), 8(1)A OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND
SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 AND
SECTION 25(1)(A) OF THE ARMS ACT, 1959, WHICH IS PRODUCED
AS ANNEXURE-A FOR THE KIND PERUSAL OF THIS HON'BLE COURT;

      B)   QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER UNDER PROVISIONS OF KCOCA ACT IN SPECIAL CASE
NO.202/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BELAGAVI, ETC.,.
                                 3




     THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 9.2.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:


                             ORDER

The Petitioner in this writ petition calls in question

sanction order dated 27.10.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent

thereby passing an order of approval under Section 24(1)(a) of

the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 ('the Act'

for short) to invoke Section 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5) and 4

of the Act in Cr.No.72 of 2020 registered by the 5th respondent

along with the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144,

147, 148, 150, 341, 302, 120(B), 212, 201, 109, 188, 504,

506, 115 read with Section 34, 35, 37, 149 of the Indian Penal

Code, Section 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 8(1-A) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, and Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. The facts in brief, as projected by the prosecution,

are as follows:-

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner along

with other accused persons was helping to prosecute a murder

case of one Santosh Patil in which one Mallikarjun Bhajantri and

others are accused. Mallikarjun Bhajantri was the friend of the

deceased and was detained as an under trial prisoner with

regard to the said Santosh Patil. The accused persons who are

friends of Santosh Patil claimed to have been helping

prosecution witnesses in the case. The murder of Santosh Patil

leads to a crime in Crime No.72 of 2000 of Gokak Town Police.

The allegation is that the accused planned the murder at about

8.20 p.m. wherein accused 3, 4 and 5 came in a motorcycle,

accused nos.6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 came in an auto-rickshaw and

reached Gokak Town when the deceased was talking over a

mobile phone. Accused No.3 assaults the deceased on his head

with a machete; accused No.4 on the stomach; accused No.5 on

his hands; accused No.7 on the legs and accused No.8 on the

back of the deceased.

3. In the light of the crime in Crime No.72 of 2020 the

Inspector General of Police, Northern Range accorded

permission to invoke Sections 3, 4 and 24(1)(a) of the Act.

Pursuant to invocation of the Act against the accused, the

Sessions Judge transferred the crime in Crime No.72 of 2020 to

the Special Judge to proceed with the matter under the Act.

The Investigating Officer filed an application seeking extension

of 90 more days in terms of Section 22 of the Act to complete

his investigation after which a charge sheet is filed against

accused nos.1 to 17 as accused 18, 19 and 20 are absconding.

The petitioner is accused No.6. The Additional Director General

of Police on 27.10.2020 accords sanction in terms of Section

24(2) of the Act to proceed with the trial, after which the

Sessions Judge in Special S.C.No.202 of 2020 takes cognizance

of the offence. It is that order that is called in question by the

petitioner in the case at hand.

4. Heard Shri Ranganath Reddy R., the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, Shri Ramesh Chigari, the learned

HCGP for respondents no.1 to 5 and Shri Avinash M. Angadi, the

learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.6.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that invocation of provisions of the Act against the

petitioner is illegal and contrary to the Act as this is the first

crime that is registered against the petitioner and he should be

tried under the Indian Penal Code and not under the draconian

law viz., the Act. The learned counsel to buttress his submission

would place reliance upon the following judgments of the Apex

Court viz., (i) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW

DELHI v. MAHIPAL SINGH - (2014) AIR (SCW) 4103; (ii)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. LALIT SOMBATTA - (2007) 2

AICLR 847 and (iii) STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. BRIJESH

SINGH - (2017)101 ACrC 965.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel Sri Avinash

M.Angadi appearing for the complainant/respondent No.6 would

vehemently refute the submissions made by the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and contends that this may have

been the first case against the petitioner but he is part of a

larger crime syndicate and, therefore invocation of the Act

against the petitioner is valid and is in accordance with the Act.

He would place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court

and this Court in the cases of (i) KAVITHA LANKESH v. STATE

OF KARNATAKA - 2021 SCC Online SC 956; (ii) PRASAD

SHRIKANT PUROSHIT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND

ANOTHER - (2015) 7 SCC 440; (iii) STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

v. BRIJESH SINGH - (2017) 10 SCC 779; (iv) S.NARAYAN v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA - ILR 2019 KAR 1668; (v) SAFER

AHMED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - Criminal Petition No.4653

of 2016 decided on 14-11-201.

7. The learned High Court Government Pleader

Shri Praveen K. Uppar appearing for other respondents would

toe the lines of the learned counsel for respondent No.6 and

submit that the proceedings taken up by the Government are in

tune with the Act and the matter does not require interference

at the hands of this Court at this stage where charge sheet is

filed and cognizance is taken by the learned Sessions Judge.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and

perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof the only

issue that falls for my consideration is whether according of

sanction against the petitioner under the Act is contrary to the

Act.

9. To consider the aforementioned issue, certain

provisions of the Act are germane to be noticed and are

extracted herein for the purpose of ready reference:

2. Definitions. - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(a) "Abet", with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes, -

(i) communication or association with any person with the knowledge or having reason to believe that such person is engaged in assisting in any manner, an organized crime syndicate;

(ii) Passing on or publication of, without any lawful authority, any information likely to assist an organized crime syndicate and the passing on or publication of or distribution of any document or matter obtained from an organized crime syndicate; and

(iii) Rendering of any assistance, whether financial or otherwise, to an organized crime syndicate;

(b) "Code" means the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974),

(c) "Competent Authority" means the Competent Authority appointed under section 13;

(d) "Continuing unlawful activity" means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheet have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence;

(e) "Organized crime" means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual,

singly or jointly, either as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency;

(f) "Organized crime syndicate", means a group of two or more persons who acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang, indulge in activities of organized crime;

(g) "Review Committee" means a Review Committee constituted under section 16;

(h) "Special court" means the Special Court constituted under section 5.

(2) Words and expressions used but not defined in the Act and defined in the Code shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Code.

3. Punishment for organized crime - (1) whoever commits an organized crime shall, - (i) if such act has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, which shall not be less than one lakh rupees.

(ii) In any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.

(2) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates, abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organized

crime or any act preparatory to organized crime, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.

(3) Whoever harbors or conceals or attempts to harbor or conceal, any member of an organized crime syndicate shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine, which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.

(4) Any person who is a member of an organized crime syndicate shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.

(5) Whoever holds any property derived or obtained from commission of an organized crime or which has been acquired through the organized crime syndicate funds shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, which shall not be less than two lakh rupees.

(emphasis added.)

The Act defines what is 'continuing unlawful activity' and

'organized crime'. Continuing unlawful activity under the Act

would mean an activity prohibited by law which is a cognizable

offence punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more,

undertaken either singly or jointly as a member of the organized

crime or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more

than one charge sheet have been filed before a competent Court

within the preceding 10 years. 'Organized crime' is defined to be

of continuing unlawful activity by an individual singly or jointly

as a member of the organized syndicate by use of violence and

other means. 'Organized crime syndicate' means a group of two

or more persons who acting either singly or collectively as a

gang indulges in activities of crime. It is the purport of the

afore-quoted provision that requires consideration in the case at

hand.

10. Proceedings against the petitioner are instituted for

the offences punishable under the Act. Cognizance of and

investigation into an offence is dealt with under Section 24 of

the Act. Section 24 of the Act reads as follows:

24. Cognizance of and investigation into an offence. -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, -

(a) No information about the commission of an offence of organized crime under this Act shall be recorded by a police officer without the prior

approval of the police officer not below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General of Police;

(b) No investigation of an offence under the provisions of this Act shall be carried out by a police officer below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

(2) No Special Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the police officer not below the rank of an Additional Director General of Police.

It is the action of taking cognizance under Section 24 is what is

called in question coupled with the fact that the petitioner

cannot be brought under the ambit of the Act. The submission

of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is the first

crime and first charge sheet and, therefore, the offence cannot

be brought under the ambit of continued unlawful activity as

continuing unlawful activity requires more than one charge

sheet to be filed in the last preceding 10 years. This submission

is unacceptable. Continuing unlawful activity is clear in its terms

that any offence undertaken either singly or jointly as a member

of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in

respect of which more than one charge sheet have been filed is

a cognizable offence. Therefore, the purport of the section is

more than one charge sheet should have been filed in the case

of members of the syndicate if the offence is undertaken either

singly or jointly. Organised crime and organized crime syndicate

are also defined under the Act. Whoever singly or collectively as

a syndicate or a gang commits offence punishable under the Act

a single case whether the charge sheet is, for the first time filed,

would get over-powered by the activity of the gang and the

charge sheet filed against the members of the gang. The

abetment to such crime is also defined under Section 2(1)(a).

Rendering any assistance whether financial or otherwise to an

organized crime syndicate amounts to abetment.

11. Therefore, every contention of the petitioner that he

is to be tried under the IPC and not under the Act sans

substance. It is now germane to notice respective authorities

relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

respondents. The petitioner places reliance upon the judgment

in the case of Mahipal Singh (supra) which was interpreting

Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 which is in

pari materia with the Act. The Apex Court in the said case has

held as follows:

9. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that to come within the mischief of continuing unlawful activity, it is required to be established that the accused is 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 person for an offence for violation of law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence. In the case in hand, examinations alleged to have been rigged had taken place in January, 2010, June, 2010, November, 2010 and January, 2011 and the date on which the first information reports were registered, more than one charge-sheets were not filed against the accused for the offence of specified nature within the preceding period of ten years and further, the court had not taken cognizance in such number of cases. As observed earlier, for punishment for offence of organised crime under Section 3 of MCOCA, the accused is required to be involved in continuing unlawful activity which inter alia provides that more than one charge- sheets have been filed before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years and the court had taken cognizance of such offence. Therefore, in the case in hand, on the date of commission of the offence, all the ingredients

to bring the act within Section 3 of MCOCA have not been satisfied. We are conscious of the fact that there may be a case in which on the date of registration of the case, one may not be aware of the fact of charge-sheet and cognizance being taken in more than one case in respect of the offence of specified nature within the preceding period of ten years, but during the course of investigation, if it transpires that such charge-sheets and cognizance have been taken, Section 3 of the MCOCA can be invoked. There may 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 is not permissible. In other words, procedural requirement for prosecution of a person for an offence can later on be satisfied but ingredients constituting the offence must exist on the date the crime is committed or detected. Submission of charge-sheets in more than one case and taking cognizance in such number of cases are ingredients of the offence and have to be satisfied on the date the crime was committed or came to be known.

A little earlier to the said judgment the Apex Court has

considered the Maharashtra Act and in 2017 in the case of

Brijesh Singh (supra) considered the purport of the Maharashtra

Act. The Apex Court has held as follows:

42. The definition of "continuing unlawful activity" under Section 2(1)(d) mainly refers to an activity prohibited by law. The said activity should be a cognizable offence, punishable with imprisonment of three years or more. The commission of such offence should have been undertaken either by an individual singly or by joining with others either as a member of an "organised crime syndicate" or even if as an individual or by joining hands with others even if not as a member of a "organised crime syndicate" such commission of an offence should have been on behalf of such syndicate. It further states that in order to come within the definition of "continuing unlawful activity" there should have been more than one charge-sheet filed before a competent court within the preceding period of 10 years and that the said court should have taken cognizance of such offence.

Though the Apex Court has considered the purport of the

Maharashtra Act in all these cases, what is germane to be

noticed is the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court by a

Bench of three Judges which considers the afore-quoted

judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in

an identical case interpreting the Act. Every argument that is

now advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner bares consideration at the hands of the Apex Court in

the case of Kavitha Lankesh (supra). The Apex Court considers

the very submission that one should have two charge sheets at

the minimum to bring them within the ambit of the Act and

answers if they are part of the crime syndicate or having played

the role of an abettor being a party to the conspiracy to commit

organized crime or a facilitator as the case may be, it is not

essential that more than 2 charge sheets have to be filed

against the person so named. This submission is negatived by

the Apex Court in the case of Kavitha Lankesh (supra). The

Apex Court holds as follows:

17. The High Court opened the judgment by noting that the challenge is to the order dated 14.08.2018 of the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City granting approval to invoke Section 3 of the 2000 Act. In the latter part of the judgment, however, it posed a wrong question to itself which was obviously not relevant at this stage -- as to whether Section 3 of the 2000 Act applies to the writ petitioner-Mohan Nayak N.? Notably, the High Court was not called upon nor has it analysed the entire material collected by the Investigating Agency, which had been made part of the chargesheet filed before the competent Court and in respect of which cognizance is also taken.

18. For the time being for deciding the matter in issue, there is no need to advert to the contents of the chargesheets and the material collated during the investigation by the SIT against each of the

accused in respect of which cognizance has already been taken by the competent Court.

19. The moot question to be answered in these appeals is about the purport of Section 24 of the 2000 Act. Section 24(1)(a), which is crucial for our purpose, reads thus:

"24. Cognizance of and investigation into an offence.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, -

(a) No information about the commission of an offence of organized crime under this Act shall be recorded by a police officer without the prior approval of the police officer not below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General of Police;

......"

20. The purport of this section, 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.

21. 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. Further, the right question to be posed at this stage is : whether prior approval accorded by the competent authority under Section 24(1)(a) is valid? In that, whether there was discernible information about commission of an offence of organized crime by known and unknown persons as being members of the organized crime syndicate?

Resultantly, what needed to be enquired into by the appropriate authority (in the present case, Commissioner of Police) is : whether the factum of commission of offence of organized crime by an organized crime syndicate can be culled out from the material placed before him for grant of prior approval? That alone is the question to be enquired into even by the Court at this stage. 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.

22. 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. The High Court, thus,

examined the matter by applying erroneous scale. The observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment clearly reveal that it has glossed over the core and tangible facts.

23. 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-Mohan Nayak N., 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-Mohan Nayak N. regarding offences under Section 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the 2000 Act. The High Court did so being impressed by the exposition of this Court in Lalit Somdatta Nagpal25, in particular paragraph 63 thereof. Indeed, that exposition would have bearing only if the entire material was to be analysed by the High Court to conclude that the facts do not disclose justification for application of provisions of the 2000 Act including qua the writ petitioner-Mohan Nayak N., provided he was being proceeded only for offence of organized crime punishable under Section 3(1) of the 2000 Act. For, the reported decision deals with the argument regarding invocation of provision analogous to Section 3(1) of the 2000 Act. Be it noted that requirement of more than two chargesheets is in reference to the continuing unlawful activities of the organized crime syndicate and not qua individual member thereof. Reliance was also placed on Brijesh Singh26. Even this decision is of no avail to the private respondent-Mohan Nayak N. for the same reason noted whilst distinguishing Lalit Somdatta Nagpal27. Further, the questions considered in that case, as can be discerned from paragraph 12 of the reported decision, are regarding jurisdiction of the competent Court to take notice of chargesheets filed against the

accused outside the State. It is not an authority on the issue under consideration.

24. We may hasten to add that the fact that the Investigating Agency was unable to collect material during investigation against the writ petitioner-Mohan Nayak N. 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.

29. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, these appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court needs to be set aside.

30. While parting, we may clarify that rejection of writ petition filed by the private respondent- Mohan Nayak N. will not come in his way in pursuing other remedies as may be available to him and permissible in law. We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion either way on the merits of such remedy. In other words, this judgment is limited to the consideration of question whether prior approval dated 14.08.2018 granted by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, in connection with offence registered as Crime No.

221/2017, is valid or otherwise. We have held that the same does not suffer from any infirmity including qua private respondent-Mohan Nayak N. having noted his intimate nexus with the brain behind the entire event being none other than Amol Kale and master arms trainer Rajesh D. Bangera who are part and parcel of an organized crime syndicate and committed organized crimes as such.

(Emphasis Supplied.)

Therefore, the submission and the contentions need not detain

this Court for long or delve deeper into the matter as the Bench

of three Judges on consideration of all the earlier judgments has

held on an identical action taken by the State against the

accused therein to be valid in the eye of law. It is also germane

to notice certain judgments where the Apex Court brings out

importance of the Maharashtra Act and offences therein in the

case of Prasad Shrikant Puroshit (supra). Interpreting the

provisions of the Act this Court in Criminal Petition No.4653 of

2016 has held as follows:

6. Xxx xxxx xxx... The accused were conspiring and making preparations to commit the murder of prominent Hindu leaders. Section 2(d) of KCOC Act, 2000 provides "committing unlawful activities" prohibited by law, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of

organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such Syndicate in respect of which more than 1 charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that in order to invoke the provisions of the Act, two charge sheets are to be filed and cognizance has to be taken by the Magistrate against the individual accused cannot be accepted. The Crimes undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge sheet has been filed, indicates that even if charge sheets are filed in such number of crimes on behalf of the syndicate also is sufficient to invoke the provisions of the Act.

Therefore in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in

the afore-extracted judgments particularly in the case of

Kavitha Lankesh (supra) the submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted and are

therefore repelled.

12. For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any merit in

the writ petition and the same is dismissed.

SD JUDGE Mrk/-