A Delhi Court has acquitted alleged members of an organized crime syndicate, who were booked under the stringent Maharashtra Control of organized crime Act (MCOCA), while one of the accused was declared as a proclaimed offender and an absconder before his arrest.
The accused persons were charged with section 3 and 4 of the MCOC Act and after considering the facts and circumstances.
The Defense Counsel for the accused person argued that to satisfy the requirements of MCOCA, prosecution has to satisfy the definition of Continuing Unlawful Activity and Organized Crime and further stated that that the offence committed to satisfy the requirements of MCOCA must be as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of the syndicate.
Relying on various judgments and the defense on record, the Defendants argued that cases that have ended in acquittal cannot be used to satisfy the requirements of MCOCA or for establishing continuity of the unlawful activity. There is no continuing unlawful activity as separate offences have been committed for separate reasons and there is no continuity of the offences to show that any such syndicate existed.
It was further submitted that bald and vague allegations that the offence was committed to create fear in the public without any other benefit pecuniary or otherwise, cannot amount to other advantage to satisfy the requirements of MCOCA. Merely stating that the offence was committed to create fear in the public without anything more cannot amount to other advantage as required for MCCOA. It was further submitted that taking all the chargesheets alleged against the said syndicate, there is no continuing unlawful activity as separate offences have been committed for separate reasons and there is no continuity of the offences to show that any such syndicate existed. The defense counsel further pointed out that no confession statement can be invoked without proving the foundation of the act. In the absence of Section 3 being satisfied, section 4 cannot be satisfied claiming that MCOCA is not a standalone offence.
Citing multiple FIRs filed against the accused, the Addl. PP and Counsel for the complainant stated that the accused persons were involved in organized crime.
After going through the material on record, the Special Judge came to the conclusion that to establish existence of an organized crime syndicate, it has to be shown that there was group of two or more persons who either singly or jointly, indulged in activities of organized crime as a syndicate or a gang. The Court took notice that ‘Organized Crime’ is defined separately from ‘continuing unlawful activity’, under the Act and definition of latter makes it clear that law makers qualified this term to incorporate the requisites of organized crime. It was further observed that there has to be a latest commission of an offence as part of continued unlawful activity along with falling into the category of organized crime, so as to trigger the prosecution of accused under MCOCA.
Case Name- State vs Iqbal Gazi
Counsels for accused Jamal@Ranjha – Adv. Akshay Bhandari, Adv. Anmol Sachdeva, Adv. Kushal Kumar, Adv. Megha Saroa, Adv. Janak Raj Ambavat
 (1)_20241122153242_original_image_7.webp)
