STATE (NCT OF DELHI) versus BRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN KUMAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 899 · Decided: 09-10-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 11 S.C.R. 899 
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 
v. 
BRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN KUMAR AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2017) 
OCTOBER 09, 2017 
[S. A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (As 
applicable in Delhi): 
ss. 1(2), 2(/)(d), 2(l)(e), 3 and 4 - Prosecution under s. 3 -
Validity of - Charge-sheet filed against the respondent~accused -
Charge-sheet mentioned two FIRs (FIR No. 69 of 2007 and FIR No. 
A 
B 
c 
122 of 2010) which were filed in Delhi and referred to six other 
cases, cognizance whereof was taken by the competent courts in 0 
Uttar Pradesh - Request made to Special Court to take cognizance 
of the offences u!ss. 314 of MCOCA - Special court discharged the 
accused holding that it had no jurisdiction to frame charges, as 
except FIR No. 69 of 2007 there was no other case which had been 
taken cognizance by competent court in Delhi (FIR No. 122 of 2010 
not being relevant) and the criminal cases filed in Uttar Pradesh 
E 
could not be taken into account for satisfying the ingredients of 
'continuing unlawful activity' uls. 2(l)(d) -Appeal against the order 
of Special Court was dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: 
Organised crime which is an offence punishable u/s. 3 means a 
continuing unlawful activity - Relevant pre-condition for considering 
F 
an activity as continuing unlawful activity, is that there should be 
two charge-sheets within JO years m:zd a competent court has taken 
cognizance of such charge-sheets - Organized crime is not an activity 
restricted to a particular State - 'Competent Courts' in the definition 
of 'continuing unlawful activity' is not restricted to courts in Delhi 
alone - Therefore charge-sheets filed in competent courts in State 
G 
' other than Delhi not to be excluded - In case the nexus between 
charge-sheets filed in competent courts outside Delhi and the those 
filed in Delhi are sufficiently established, prosecution under MCOCA 
cannot be held invalid on account of extra-territoriality - Therefore, 
in the present case, charge-sheets filed in competent courts in Uttar 
899 
H 
900 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
Pradesh should not have been excluded from consideration -
However, an activity of organised crime in Delhi is sine qua non for 
registration of a crime under MCOCA - In the absence of an 
organised crime being committed in Delhi, accused cannot be 
prosecuted on the basis of charge-sheets filed outside Delhi - Only 
B an activity which is a cognizable offence punishable with minimum 
sentence of three years or more would be a continuous unlawful 
activity uls. 2( 1 )( d) - In the present case FIR No. 122 of 2010 cannot 
be taken into account, as punishment for two of the offences therein 
is less than 3 years and one of the offences is non-cognizable - In 
FIR No. 69 of 2007, .there was no criminal activity pertaining to 
C 
organised crime within the territory of Delhi - Thus, no cause of 
action arises for initiation of proceedings under MCOCA. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Interpretation of penal statute - The principles of strict 
construction are adopted for interpretation of penal statutes -
D However, even a penal provision should be interpreted to advance 
the object which the legislature had in view - MCOCA was 
promulgated with the object of arresting organised crime - The 
provisions of MCOCA should be interpreted in a manner which 
would advance the object of MCOCA - Maharashtra Control of 
E 
Organised Crime Act, 1999. 
F 
G 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The principles of strict construction have to be 
adopted for interpretation of the provisions of Maharashtra 
Control of Organised C::rime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) which is a penal 
statute. However, even a penal provision should be interpreted 
to advance the object which the legislature had in view. [Para 13] 
(913-C] 
Ranjitsing Brahamajeetsing Sharma v. Maharashtra 
(2005) 5 SCC 294 : (2005] 3 SCR 345 ; State of 
Maharashtra and ors. v. Lalit Somdutta Nagpal and 
Am: (2007) 4 SCC 171 : (2007] 2 SCR 473 ; Murlidhar 
Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 3 SCC 
684 : (1977] 1 SCR 1 - relied on. 
1.2 The commission of crimes like contract killings, 
H extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics, 
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. BRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN 
901 
KUMAR AND ANR. 
kidnappings for ransom, collection of protection money and money 
A 
laundering, etc, by organised crime syndicates was on the rise. 

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