LexCHENNA BOYANNA KRISHNA YADAV versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-~ CHENNA BOY ANNA KRISHNA YADAV A v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. DECEMBER 8, 2006 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] B Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999-Sections 3(2), 21 ( 4) & 2 4-Printing of counterfeit stamps and stamp papers by Organised Crime Syndicate-Appellant is Advocate by profession and had been a Minister c in the State Government-Allegation that the counterfeit stamps were being sold under his protection-Charges under s.3(2) & 24-Judicial custody- !!!!!Po Entitlement of Appellant to bail-Held, entitled-Alleged conversation between - Appellant and Kingpin of the Syndicate may show acquaintance but may not per se be sufficient to prove direct role of Appellant. D A case was registered against the appellant under Sections 3 and 24 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 (MCOCA) as also under the provisions of IPC and Bombay Stamps Act, 1958. It was alleged that the appellant received huge amounts of money from time to time from an Organised Crime Syndicate relating to printing of counterfeit stamps, headed by one 'Telgi', and in return, being an influential political E person, provided a protective umbrella to the Syndicate, and thus, knowingly facilitated and abetted the commission of organised crime by it. The appellant was arrested and at present he is in judicial custody. F In appeal to this Court it was contended that on the basis of the material on record, no inference can be drawn that the appellant was a party to conspiracy or had abetted commission or facilitation of the crime with which Telgi or other co-accused were associated; that even if prosecution -1 version is taken on its face value, the appellant's alleged association with Telgi would not bring his case within the ambit of Section 3(2) and at best G only Section 24 of MCOCA may be attracted and that the maximum punishment provided under Section 24 of MCOCA being three years rigorous imprisonment and the appellant having already been in judicial custody for more than three years Is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 381 H -' 382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. IO S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: l. It is plain from a bare reading of the non-obstante clause in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of MCOCA that the power to grant bail by the High Court or Court of Sessions is not only subject to the limitations imposed by Section 439, CrPC but is also Silbject to the limitations placed B by Section 21(4) of MCOCA. Apart from the grant of opportunity to the Public Prosecutor,· the other twin conditions are: the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. C The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be based on reasonable grounds. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than primafacie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provisions requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to D justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Thus, recording of findings under the said provision is a sine qua non for granting bail under MCOCA; 1387-E-GI E Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 12005] 5 sec 294, relied on. State v. Capt. Jagjit Singh, 11962] 3 SCR 622; Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), [1978) l SCC 118 and Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State o/Tamil Nadu, [2005) 2 SCC 13, referred to. 2.1. At this stage, it is.neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the F evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether or not the appellant has committed offences under Section 3(2) or Section 24 of MCOCA. What is to be seen is whether there is a reasonable ground for believing that the appellant is not guilty of the two offences, he has been charged with, and further that he is not likely to commit an offence under G MCOCA while on bail. The circumstance which has weighed with the High Court to conclude that the appel_lant had the knowledge of Organised Crime Syndicate of Telgi, printing fake stamps etc. and these were being sold under the protection
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.