MAHIPAL SINGH versus C.B.I. & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 27-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 4 S.C.R. 529 
MAHIPAL SINGH 
v. 
C.B.I. & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 682 of 2014) 
MARCH 27, 2014 
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND PINAKI 
CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) 
A 
B 
- ss.2(1)(e), 2(1)(d) and 3 - "Organised crime" - "Continuing 
C 
unlawful activity" - Entrance examinations to Postgraduate 
and undergraduate courses in Medical Science and 
undergraduate courses in Veterinary Science - Rigging of 
results "T Invocation of s.3 of MCOCA - Permissibility- Held: 
For punishment for offence of organised crime u/s.3 of D 
MCOCA, the accused is required to be involved in continuing 
unlawful activity which inter alia provides that more than one 
charge-sheet have been filed before a competent court within 
the preceding period of ten years and the court had taken 
cognizance of such offence - Submission of charge-sheets 
E 
in more than one case and taking cognizance in such number 
of cases are ingredients of the offence and have to be 
satisfied on the date the crime was committed or came to be 
known - An act which is not an offence on the date of its 
commission or the date on which it came to be known, cannot 
F 
be treated as an offence because of certain events taking 
place later on - Procedural requirement for prosecution of a 
person for an offence can later on be satisfied but ingredients 
constituting the offence must exist on the date the crime is 
committed or detected - In the case at hand, the examinations 
G 
alleged to have been rigged had taken place in January, 
2010, June, 2010, November, 2010 and January, 2011 and 
the date on which the FIRs were registered, more than one 
charge-sheets were not filed against the accused for the 
529 
H 
530 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A offence of specified nature within the preceding period of ten 
years and further, the court had not taken cognizance in such 
number of cases - On the date of commission of the offence, 
all the ingredients to bring the act within s.3 of MCOCA were 
not satisfied - Therefore, the accused could not be prosecuted 
B for the offence u/s.3 of MCOCA - Constitution of India, 1950 
- Art. 20(1) - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 1208 rlw ss. 420, 467, 471 
and 511. 
'M' was accused in a number of cases related to 
C rigging of results of entrance examinations. The 
prosecution case was that 'M' was the kingpin, who 
facilitated the interpolation and manipulation of the OMR 
Answer Sheets of certain candidates enabling them to 
qualify in the postgraduate and undergraduate courses 
in Medical Science and undergraduate courses in 
D Veterinary Science. 'M' was alleged to have committed the 
offence under Section 120B read with Section 420, 467, 
471 and 511 IPC. 
'M' was charge-sheeted in four cases. The DIG, CBI 
E granted approval for invoking Section 3 of Maharashtra 
Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) against him. 'M' 
challenged the orders in four separate writ petitions filed 
before the High Court. Meanwhile, the investigating 
agency secured M's remand under MCOCA from the 
F Designated Court in two cases. 'M' also challenged those 
orders of remand in two separate writ petitions. 
All the writ petitions were heard together and by a 
common judgment, the High Court set aside the orders 
of the DIG, CBI granting approval in three cases on its 
G finding that CBI "could not have invoked MCOCA in four 
different cases on same set of facts and four different 
charge-sheets". However, in the fourth case, the order of 
DIG, CBI invoking Section 3 of MCOCA was upheld by the 
High Court. The High Court dismissed both the writ 
H petitions filed against the orders of remand for offence 
MAHIPAL SINGH v. C.8.1. & ANR. 
531 
under the provisions of MCOCA as infructuous. Hence 
A 
the cross-appeals by the accused 'M' and the CBI. 
Allowing the appeal preferred by the accused and 
dismissing the appeals preferred by the CBI, the Court 
HELD:1. Section 3 of Maharashtra Control of B 
Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) is the penal provision 
which provides for punishment for organized crime. 
"Organised crime" has been defined under Section 
2(1)(e) of MCOCA. The definition, inter alia, makes it clear 
that to come within the mischief of organised crime, 
C 
continuing unlawful activity with the objective of gaining 
pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other 
advantage for himself or any other person or promoting 
insurgency are essential. "Continuing unlawful activity" 
has been defin

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