RANJITSING BRAHMAJEETSING SHARMA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 345 · Decided: 07-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 14 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RANJITSING BRAHMAJEETSING SHARMA 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
APRIL 7, 2005 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE, B.P. SINGH AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
B 
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, I 999 : 
ss. 3 and 24 read with ss. 2(d), 2(e), 2(/), ands. 21(4)-/nterpretation 
of-Printing of counterfeit stamps-Accused arrested-During investigation, C 
a police officer also arrested on ground of rendition of help and support to 
organized crime syndicate-Application for bail by police officer-Held, 
provisions of the Act must receive a strict construction so as to pass the test 
ofreasonableness-s. 21(4) must be construed reasonably so that the court is 
able to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and D 
conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial-
Prima faie s.3(2) is not attracted-Order granting interim bail to continue-
Penal Code-ss. 107 and JOB-Constitution of India-Article 21. 
Evidence-Brain mapping test report-Admissibility of 
Words and Phrases : 
Expressions, 'abet', and 'conspiracy '-Meaning of in the context of the 
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, I 999 : 
E 
A case of printing counterfeit stamps and forgery in various States p 
including the State of Maharashtra was unearthed and fake stamp papers 
worth lacs of rupees were recovered during appellant's tenure as 
Commissioner of Police, Pune. One 'T' was arrested and a case initially 
under various sections of Penal Code was registered. Later, s.3 of the 
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 was invoked. During 
investigation, the appellant was arrested on the alleged ground of rendition G 
of help and support to organized crime syndicate by acts of omission and 
commission, i.e. rendering help or support to a police officer through 
another police officer, both of whom were co-accused in the case. His bail 
application was rejected by the Special Judge as also by the High Court. 
345 
H 
346 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005) 3 S.C.R. 
A Aggrieved, the accused filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Prima facie section 3(2) of Maharashtra Control of 
Organized Crime Act, 1999 is not attracted in the instant case. Sub-section 
B (2) of s.3 of the Act provides punishment, inter alia, for facilitating 
conspiracy or abetting or commission of a crime by a person knowingly 
or any act preparatory to organized crime. The expression 'conspiracy' 
is not a term of art. It has a definite connotation. Mens rea to commit the 
crime must be established besides the fact of agreement. Mens rea is a 
C necessary ingredient for commission of a crime under MCOCA. 
(366-D-H; 367-A; 369-B-D] 
1.2. The offence under s.3(2) of MCOCA must have a direct nexus 
with the offence committed by an organized crime syndicate. Abetment 
of commission of offence must be by way of accessories before the 
D commission of an offence. An offence may be committed by a public 
servant by reason of acts of omission and commission which would amount 
to tampering with the investigation or to help an accused. Such an act 
would make him an accessory after the commission of the offence. The 
High Court does not say that the appellant has abetted 'T' or had 
conspired with him. The findings of the High Court as against the appellant 
E are attributable to allegations of abetting the two police officers. Both were 
public servants. They may or may not have any direct role to play as 
regard commission of an organized crime but unless a nexus witfl an 
accused who is a member of the organized crime syndicate or an offence 
in the nature of organized crime is established, only by showing some 
F alleged indulgence to the two co-accused police officers, the appellant 
cannot be said to have conspired or abetted commission of an organized 
crime. (365-D-E; 369-B-D) 
Shri Ram v. The State of UP., AIR (1975) SC 175; Kehar Singh and 
Ors. v. The State, (Delhi Admn.) AIR (1988) SC 1883; State of Karnataka v. 
G L. Muniswamy and Ors., AIR (1977) SC 1489; P.K. Narayanan v. State of 
Kera/a, (1995) 1SCC142 and Saju v. State of Kera/a, AIR (2001) SC 175, 
referred to. 
1.3. The interpretation clause as regards the expression 'abet' do_es 
not refer to the definition of abetment as contained in s.107 IPC. It refers 
H to such meaning which can be attributed to it in the general sense with 
<;;.= 
RANJITSING BRAHMAJEETSING SHARMA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
34 7 
grammatical variations and cognate expressions. However, h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.