PRASAD SHRIKANT PUROHIT versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR

Citation: [2015] 8 S.C.R. 575 · Decided: 15-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 8 S.C.R. 575 
PRASAD SH RI KANT PU ROH IT 
, A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA&ANR 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1969-1970 of 2010) 
APRIL 15, 2015 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
B 
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999: 
c 
Object and reason of enactment - Discussed. 
s.2(1)(d) - Continuing unlawful activity - Essential 
ingredients to come within the definition of 'continuing 
unlawful activity' - Discussed. 
D 
s.2(1)(e) - Organized crime - Essential ingredients to 
come within the definition of 'organized crime' - Discussed. 
s.2(1)(e), (f)- Organized crime- Facts disclosed nexus E 
of A-7 with the members of 'organized crime syndicate' and 
nexus with offence in the nature of an 'organized crime' of 
the two earlier cases namely Parbhani and Jalna and also 
direct involvement in the present bomb blast at Malegaon -
Therefore, activity and involvement of A-7 in all three F 
occurrences disclosed nexus in the crime and also with the 
other accused involved in the crime and thereby the 
satisfaction of the definition of 'continuing unlawful activity' of 
an organized crime' on behalf of an organized crime 
syndicate was sufficiently shown - Thus, by virtue of s.21 (4) G 
A-7 not entitled to bail - In case of rest of the appellants for 
invoking s.21 (4)(b), namely, to consider their claim for bail, it 
can be held that for the present juncture with the available 
575 
H 
576 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 8 S.C.R. 
A materials on record, it is not possible to show any nexus of 
the appellants who have been proceeded against for their 
involvement in Malegaon blast with the two earlier cases, 
namely, Parbhani and Jalna - There is considerable doubt 
about their involvement in Parbhani and Jalna and, therefore, 
B they are entitled for their bail applications to be considered 
on merits. 
ss.2(1)(d), (e), (f), 11 - Malegaon bomb blast case -
Special judge passed the order of discharge on the footing 
C that cognizance of two earlier cases within preceding 10 years 
from the date of third occurrence was not satisfied and 
simultaneously ordered transfer of the case to regular court 
- On appeal, Division Bench held that the Special court 
misdirected himself by stating that the cognizance was with 
D reference to the offender and not the offence which led to the 
passing of such illegal order and that cognizance of offence 
was taken as early as on 7.9.2006 in Parbani case and 
30. 9. 2006 in Jalna case which were within the preceding 10 
years from the date of Malegaon case and therefore the order 
E of discharge was not sustainable -
On appeal, held: 
Cognizance is always of the offence and not the offender and 
once the magistrate applies his judicial mind with reference 
to the commission of an offence, the cognizance is taken at 
F that very moment- The cognizance· of the offence taken into 
account in respect of Parbhani and Jalna based on the 
charge-sheets dated 07. 09. 2006 and 30. 09.2006 respectively 
was perfectly in order to apply the definition of 'continuing 
unlawful activity' for the purpose of invoking MCOCA with 
G reference to Malegaon occurrence. 
s.2(1)(d) -.Requirement offiling of charge-sheet in two 
earlier cases before the competent court in respect of offence 
uls.2(1)(d) can be held to be satisfied once cognizance is 
H taken by a Judicial Magistrate of first class or for that matter 
an empowered second class Magistrate in the event of filing 
PRASAD SHRIKANT PUROHITv. STATE OF 
577 
MAHARASHTRA 
of a police report as prescribed u/s. 173(2)(i) by virtue of power A 
vested uls. 190(1 )(b) - If ingredients of the said requirement 
are fulfilled, it will have to be held that that part of the 
requirement u/s.2(1)(d) namely the competent court taking 
cognizance of offence as stipulated u/s.2(1 )(d) in respect of 
two earlier cases will get fulfilled. 
B 
s.2(1)(d) - Whether taking of cognizance of offence by 
the competent court uls.2(1)(d) is referable only to the court 
of sessions or even to a Magistrate of first class u/s. 190 -
Held: On fulfillment of s.190, when a Judicia/Magistrate of C 
first class or an empowered second class Magistrate takes 
cognizance of any offence that would fulfill the requirement 
of s. 2(1 )(d) relating to the competent court. 
s. 3(2) - Invocation of- Held: In_ order to invoke MCOCA o 
even if a person may or may not have any direct role to play 
as regards the commission of an organized crime, if a nexus 
either wit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.