Summary
The State challenged discharge of two accused from MCOCA proceedings in Delhi. The Court rejected the lower courts’ view that only charge sheets cognized by Delhi courts could establish continuing unlawful activity. Nevertheless, an organised crime in Delhi remained essential, and the prosecution materials disclosed none. The High Court’s judgment was upheld for different reasons.
Issues
- Whether charge sheets filed and cognized outside Delhi could establish continuing unlawful activity.
- Whether antecedent cases elsewhere permitted MCOCA prosecution without organised crime in Delhi.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(1)(d)–(f), 3, 4 and 6, as extended to Delhi, Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999Antecedent charge sheets before competent courts outside Delhi may count, but a Delhi organised crime is necessary for the local prosecution. (¶¶ 11–12, 24–26, 31–35)
Held
- Competent courts in the continuing-unlawful-activity definition are not confined to Delhi. Qualifying charge sheets filed and cognized in other States can establish the requisite antecedents. Those underlying offences remain triable in their own competent courts; considering them as antecedents does not transfer their trials to Delhi. (¶¶ 24–28, 31, 35(a))
- Territorial nexus requires a real connection and a liability pertinent to it. Organised criminal activity may span States, and construing competent court narrowly would frustrate MCOCA’s purpose. Strict construction of a penal statute still takes account of its text, context and object. (¶¶ 13–14, 21–26)
- Organised crime within Delhi is indispensable. Without it, qualifying charge sheets elsewhere cannot alone support a Delhi MCOCA prosecution. The particular extortion complaint and prosecution materials did not establish such local organised crime, and no property of the respondents in Delhi was identified. (¶¶ 32, 34–35)
- The other Delhi FIR did not supply qualifying activity: Section 341 IPC carried only a one-month maximum sentence, while Section 506 was non-cognizable at the relevant dates following the fate of the local notifications. It therefore could not meet Section 2(1)(d). (¶ 33)
Result
Appeal disposed of upholding the High Court’s judgment for different reasons: outside-State charge sheets could count, but the required organised crime in Delhi was absent.