Supreme Court Upholds MCOCA Sanction in Kidnapping Case: Abhishek vs. State of Maharashtra (20 May 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 20 May 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 502
Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.
Can a sanction for prosecution under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) be valid if based on previous criminal activities and confessional statements? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, examining the validity of a sanction order issued against an accused involved in a kidnapping case. This judgment clarifies the scope and application of MCOCA, particularly concerning the definition of organized crime and the use of prior criminal records. The bench comprised Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose, with the judgment authored by Justice Maheshwari.

Case Background

On 08 May 2020, a complaint was filed at Sadar Police Station, Nagpur City, alleging that on 02 May 2019, the complainant was forcefully kidnapped from a restaurant, intimidated with a knife, and a ransom of ₹20 lakhs was demanded. The complainant identified three of the accused: Abhishek Singh (the appellant), Ankit Pali, and Roshan Sheikh. The accused also demanded the complainant’s ancestral property papers and shop, threatened to kill him and his son, forcefully took his son in a vehicle, and extorted ₹9,000 to ₹11,000 from his pocket. The complainant, fearing for his life, left his house and stayed elsewhere.

Based on this complaint, Crime No. 251 of 2020 was registered for offences under Sections 363, 364A, 384, 386, 387, 397, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant applied for pre-arrest bail, which was initially granted on 11 May 2020. However, on 02 June 2020, the Additional Commissioner of Police approved the addition of Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) of MCOCA against six accused, including the appellant, citing their history of serious offences and failure of previous preventive actions. Subsequently, on 05 November 2020, the Additional Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City, sanctioned the prosecution of the accused under MCOCA, which is the subject of this appeal.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, Abhishek Singh, challenged the sanction order dated 05 November 2020 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, through Criminal Writ Petition No. 667 of 2020. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the sanction order. The High Court noted the appellant’s involvement in other criminal cases, some with the alleged team leader, Roshan Sheikh, and found no legal flaw in the sanction order. The High Court clarified that its observations were preliminary and would not prejudice the trial. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) was enacted to combat organized crime. Key provisions include:

• Section 2(1)(d) defines “continuing unlawful activity” as an activity prohibited by law, punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken by a member of an organized crime syndicate, with more than one charge sheet filed in the preceding ten years. ““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 organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence;”
• Section 2(1)(e) defines “organised crime” as any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate, using violence, threat, intimidation, coercion, or other unlawful means, to gain pecuniary benefits or undue economic or other advantages. ““organised crime” means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised 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;”
• Section 2(1)(f) defines “organised crime syndicate” as a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, indulge in activities of organised crime. ““organised crime syndicate” means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly of collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime.”
• Section 3 specifies punishments for organised crime, including imprisonment and fines.
• Section 23 governs the cognizance and investigation of offences under MCOCA, requiring prior approval for recording information and sanction for prosecution.

These provisions are designed to address the threat posed by organized crime syndicates by providing stringent measures and penalties, while also ensuring that the application of the law is carefully considered and approved by senior police officers.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• MCOCA is a draconian law with severe consequences, requiring strict interpretation and adherence to its provisions.
• To invoke MCOCA, there must be a minimum of two charge sheets with allegations of violence aimed at gaining pecuniary benefit or similar advantages.
• The appellant’s previous cases did not involve pecuniary benefit, and the current case is the only one with such allegations.
• The sanction order mechanically used the expression “to gain pecuniary benefit or undue economic or other advantage” without proper application to the facts.
• The sanctioning authority relied on cases where the appellant was acquitted or had proceedings quashed, which should not have been considered.
• Confessions recorded under Section 18 of MCOCA cannot be self-serving and cannot be the sole basis for sanction.
• The appellant was not an absconder and was always available in Nagpur.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The appellant is not entitled to relief as he was declared an absconder.
• The appellant was involved in multiple cases where charge sheets were filed, meeting the requirements of MCOCA.
• The acquittal in one case and quashing in another are not material to the determination of “continuing unlawful activity.”
• The term “other advantage” is not limited to pecuniary gains but includes establishing supremacy.
• Confessional statements can be considered when granting sanction under Section 23(2) of MCOCA.
• The validity of the sanction can be determined by the trial court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the sanction order dated 05.11.2020, issued by the Additional Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City, under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), for prosecuting the appellant, is valid and justified.

The Court also considered the sub-issue of whether the appellant’s past criminal record and confessional statements could be validly considered for the sanction.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered various authorities while arriving at its decision. These have been categorized based on the legal point they address:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal & Anr. [CITATION] regarding the need for strict interpretation of MCOCA but clarified that it should not render the statute unworkable.
• The Court relied on Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [CITATION] to define “any unlawful means” under MCOCA.
• The Court distinguished Jagannath Misra v. State of Orissa [CITATION], stating that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind properly in this case.
• The Court held that the plea of “other advantage” was not an afterthought, relying on Mohindhr Singh Gill & Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. [CITATION].
• The Court distinguished Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana & Ors. [CITATION], stating that the authority had not proceeded on any irrelevant consideration.
• The Court endorsed the view of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagan Gagansingh Nepali @ Jagya & Anr. [CITATION], that “other advantage” is not limited to pecuniary benefits.
• The Court referred to State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari & Ors. [CITATION] to clarify the admissibility of confessional statements under MCOCA.
• The Court relied on Kavitha Lankesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [CITATION] to clarify that the focus is on whether the material reveals the commission of an organized crime.
• The Court referred to Vinod G. Asrani v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION] to emphasize that the validity of the sanction could be determined during the trial.
• The Court relied on Balram Kumawat v. Union of India & Ors. [CITATION] to clarify that the rule of strict construction should not defeat the purpose of the law.

The Supreme Court upheld the sanction order, emphasizing that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to all relevant factors. The Court clarified that the definition of “organised crime” under MCOCA is broad and includes activities aimed at gaining not only pecuniary benefits but also other advantages, such as establishing supremacy. The Court also held that the appellant’s previous criminal record, including cases where charge sheets were filed, was relevant, and that confessional statements could be considered when granting sanction. The Court also noted that the appellant’s status as an absconder did not negate the validity of the sanction order.

“The threshold requirement in terms of clause (d) of MCOCA is that of the activity/activities undertaken by the accused persons either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate, which involves a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more and in respect of which, more than one charge-sheets have been filed before the competent Court within 10 years and cognizance had been taken.”

“The crime chart aforesaid, the nature of activities and the persons involved leave nothing to doubt that the involvement of the appellant in such crimes and unlawful activities which are aimed at gaining pecuniary advantages or of gaining supremacy and thereby, leading to other unwarranted advantages is clearly made out.”

“The detailed discussion by the sanctioning authority to the substantial pieces of evidence collected in the matter rather fortifies the conclusion that the sanctioning authority has meticulously applied its mind to all the relevant factors and has taken an overall view of the matter before forming the final opinion in favour of granting the sanction.”

The Court emphasized that the purpose of MCOCA is to deal with organized crime and protect witnesses, and that the acquittal of the appellant in one case due to witnesses turning hostile further justified the application of MCOCA. The Court also noted that the appellant’s conduct as an absconder did not entitle him to any concession or indulgence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, primarily the need to combat organized crime and the strict adherence to the procedural requirements of MCOCA. The Court emphasized that the definition of organized crime is broad and not limited to pecuniary gains alone, but also includes gaining other advantages such as establishing supremacy. The Court also highlighted the importance of witness protection as one of the objectives of MCOCA. The Court found that the sanctioning authority had meticulously applied its mind to all relevant factors, including the appellant’s past criminal record, the nature of the offences, and the confessional statements. The fact that the appellant was declared an absconder also weighed against him.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• The definition of “organised crime” under MCOCA is broad and includes activities aimed at gaining not only pecuniary benefits but also other advantages, such as establishing supremacy.
• Previous criminal records, including cases where charge sheets were filed, are relevant for determining “continuing unlawful activity” under MCOCA, regardless of the outcome of those cases.
• Confessional statements can be considered when granting sanction under Section 23(2) of MCOCA.
• The validity of a sanction order can be challenged during the trial, where the sanctioning authority can be examined and cross-examined.
• Individuals who are declared absconders and do not submit to the judicial process may not be entitled to concessions or indulgences from the court.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case, other than dismissing the appeal. The matter was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the definition of “organised crime” under MCOCA is broad and includes activities aimed at gaining not only pecuniary benefits but also other advantages, such as establishing supremacy. The Court also clarified that past criminal records, including cases where charge sheets were filed, are relevant for determining “continuing unlawful activity,” irrespective of the outcome of those cases. This judgment reinforces the stringent measures under MCOCA to combat organized crime and provides clarity on the interpretation of key provisions. This case does not change any previous positions of law but rather reinforces the existing principles of law in relation to MCOCA.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision and the sanction order issued under MCOCA. The Court emphasized the importance of combating organized crime and the need for strict adherence to the provisions of MCOCA. The Court clarified that the definition of “organised crime” is broad and includes activities aimed at gaining not only pecuniary benefits but also other advantages, such as establishing supremacy. The Court also held that the appellant’s previous criminal record and confessional statements were relevant considerations for granting sanction. The Court’s decision reinforces the stringent measures under MCOCA to combat organized crime and provides clarity on the interpretation of key provisions.