LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. versus LALIT SOMDATTA NAGPAL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. A LALIT SOMDA TIA NAGPAL AND ANR. FEBRUARY 13, 2007 [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND ALT AMAS KABIR, JJ] B Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999: Interpretation of-Held-Having regard to stringent provisions of Act of 1999, they have to be very strictly interpreted and authorities bound down C to strict observance thereof-It was especially so as they sought to deprive a citizen of his right to freedom at very initial stage of investigation, making it extremely difficult for him to obtain bail-In such a situation it is to be seen whether investigation from its very inception was conducted strictly in accordance with its provisions. D Application of-Case under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955-Committed during period when Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 was in force-Held-Offences under 1955 Act continued to attract provisions of Section 7 thereof-Only change brought about by 1981 Act was to limit power of Special Court to impose punishment for a E maximum period of two years-Offence continued to remain punishable up to a maximum period of seven years so as to attract provisions of Act of 1999. Application of-Organized crime-Sa/es Tax and Excise Laws violations-Held-Act of 1999 wds not intended to be applied to such violations-Something more in nature of coercive acts and violence is required F to be spelt out so as to bring unlawful activity complained of within definition of 'organized crime' in Section 2(a) of Act of 1999. Section 2(/)(d)-Continuing unlawful activity-Accused shown to be involved in several cases of a similar nature which were pending trial or are under investigation-Held-These facts justified application of provisions of G Act of 1999 to accused. Section 23(1)-Approval to commence investigation-Grant of-Held- lt could not apply to a person whose name was not mentioned therein 473 H 474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R. A initially and roped in only at a later stage while granting permission.for other persons-It was more so as that person was not shown to be involved in any continuing unlawful activity. Section 23(/)-Approval to commence investigation-'-Held-If it is granted mechanically, it is vitiated and unsustainable-On facts, held that B as approval was given on consideration of enactment which was non est, it reveal~d complete non-application of mind and was unsustainable. Police along with District officers raided a Petrol Pump, seized various goods and arrested persons in connection therewith. A police case was C registered under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Special Inspector General of Police granted approval under Section 23(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, [MCOCA] whereby said law became applicable to the case. The accused sought bail, anticipatory bail and challenged their arrests. The High Court held that the offences punishable under the provisions of the 1955 Act, committed during D the period when the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 was in force, were not offences considered as continuing unlawful activity as defined in Section 2( d) of the MCOCA. Hence, the present Special Leave Petitions have been filed by State wherein the common question of law relates to the applicability of MCOCA. E Respondents contended that (i) offence under MCOCA must comprise continiiing unlawful activity relating to organized crime (ii) having regard to the stringent provisions of MCOCA, itS provisions will have to be very strictly interpreted (iii) the approval order reveals complete non-application of mind inasmuch as no case pending against them was referred to therein so as to F make out a case of continuing unlawful activity, and also reference was made thereiri to Section 3 of the Petroleum Storage and Distribution Act, 2000 which enactment does not exist G Disposing of the Special Leave Petitions, the Court ' HELD: 1.1. Before the commencement of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, all offences relating to the contravention of Orders made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were triable by Judicial Magistrates of the First Class or by Metropolitan Magistrates who had powers to impose punishment of imprisonment for a term which could even extend to 7 years by virtue of Section 7(1)(a) (ii) of the H aforesaid Act. It is only after the comme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.