ABHISHEK versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1128 · Decided: 20-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
1128
ABHISHEK
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2022)
MAY 20, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 363, 364A, 384, 386, 387, 397 and
504 – Sanction order – Challenge to – FIR was registered against
the appellant for offences u/s 363, 364A, 384, 386, 387, 397 and
504 IPC – The appellant having remained out of reach, a
proclamation was issued u/s 82 of the CrPC r/w. s.20(3) of MCOCA,
declaring him as an ‘absconder’ – ADGP and Commissioner of
Police after examining the proposal of Assistant Commissioner of
Police for according sanction in terms of s.23(2) of MCOCA,
granted the sanction for prosecution of appellant under IPC, Arms
Act and MCOCA due to the previous involvement of the appellant
in other criminal cases – After the sanction, police filed the charge-
sheet against the accused persons including appellant – Appellant
approached the High Court challenging the sanctioning order –
The High Court examined the contents of sanction order and, after
finding no legal flaw or shortcoming therein, proceeded to dismiss
the writ petition – High Court rejected the contention raised by the
appellant that the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind – On
appeal, held: The suggestions on behalf of the appellant to limit the
activity only to the use of violence is obviously incorrect when it
omits to mention the wide-ranging activities contemplated by clause
(e) of s.2(1) of MCOCA, i.e., threat or violence or intimidation or
coercion or other unlawful means – Actual use of violence is not
always a sine qua non for an activity falling within the mischief of
organised crime – The second part of the requirement of the nature
of activity, i.e., pecuniary benefit, has also not been projected
correctly on behalf of the appellant – The requirement of law is not
limited to pecuniary benefits but it could also be of ‘gaining undue
economic or other advantage – Sanctioning Authority, was
conscious of the requirement of law and indeed examined the matter
only with reference to such requirement and issued the sanction
order in question only after arriving at the requisite satisfaction –
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 1128
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1129
Challenge to the judgment as passed by the High Court, and to the
sanctioning order, required to be rejected when the appellant had
been declared absconder.
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 – ss.
2(1)(d), 2(1)(e), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) & 23(2) – Object of – This
enactment is for making special provisions for dealing with the
menace of organised crime causing serious threat to the society –
No doubt, the enactment makes stringent provisions with several
extraordinary measures but, the peculiar nature of the mischief
sought to be tackled, i.e., of organised crime, has obviously led to
such extraordinary measures, particularly when the existing legal
framework was found to be rather inadequate to control the menace.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. A comprehensive look at the objects and reasons
for enactment of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act,
1999 (MCOCA), its overall purpose signified in its Preamble,
and the relevant definitions in Section 2 as also the punishments
provided in Section 3, leave nothing to doubt that this enactment
is for making special provisions for dealing with the menace of
organised crime causing serious threat to the society. No doubt,
the enactment makes stringent provisions with several
extraordinary measures but, the peculiar nature of the mischief
sought to be tackled, i.e., of organised crime, has obviously led
to such extraordinary measures, particularly when the existing
legal framework was found to be rather inadequate to control the
menace. [Para 11][1151-G-H; 1152-A]
2. The provisions of MCOCA need to be strictly construed
and for their application, an unlawful activity has to fall within the
periphery of organised crime. However, the question still remains
as to the import of the requirement of ‘strict construction’ of the
stringent provisions? A brief reference to the fundamental legal
principles in that regard shall be apposite. So far as the applicability
of the rule of strict construction qua MCOCA is concerned, it
being a special penal statute, this much is clear that no one is to
be made subject to this law by implication or by presumption;
and all doubts concerning its application would, ordinarily, be
resolved in favour 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.