STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus BHARAT SHANTI LAL SHAH & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 1083 · Decided: 01-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

0 
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 1083 
·---f 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
A 
II. 
BHARAT SHANTI LAL SHAH & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1376-1379 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 1, 2008 
B 
' 
-* 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND 
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 254 - Seventh Schedule - List I - Entry 31 - List c 
.. 
II Entries 1 and 2, List Ill - Entries 1,2 and 12 - Provisions of 
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 authorising 
interception of wire, electronic and oral communication in order 
to prevent commission of organized crime or to collect 
evidence to commission of such an organized crime - HELD: 
D 
,.._ 
Are constitutionally valid - Grounds for interception of wire, 
... 
electronic and ·oral communication under the provisions of 
MCOCA are distinct and different from those covered bys. 5(2) 
of Telegraph Act - The subjects and areas covered by two 
Acts cannot be said to be identical and common -
Even 
E 
otherwise, when the area and subject of legislation is also 
~ 
covered within purview of the Entry of State List, and Concurrent 
List, incidental encroachment to an entry in the Union List will 
not, in view of doctrine of pith and substance, make a law 
~ 
invalid and such an incidental encroachment will not make 
" 
F 
the legislation ultra vires the Constitution - Doctrine of Pith 
and Substance - Telegraph Act, 1885- s.5(2) - Maharashtra 
Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 -
Interpretation of 
Constitution. 
-~-{ 
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999: 
Gl 
ss. 13 to 16- Constitutional validity of- HELD: Provisions 
are constitutionally valid - The Act is covered under Entries 
1 and 2 of List II and is also relatable to Entries 1,2 and 12 of 
1083 
H 
1084 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
List Ill of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution-Provisions 
)---
are not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution - Constitution 
of India, 1950-Articles 21 and 254 - Seventh Schedule, List 
II Entries 1 and 2 - List Ill - Entries 1,2 and 12 - Telegraph 
Act, 1885 - s. 5(2). 
B 
s.21(5) - Restriction on granting bail - HELD: Decision 
* 
of the High Court striking down the words "or under any other 
Act" occurring in sub-s. (5) of s. 21 is upheld - Provision of 
denying a person right to seek bail under MCOCA if he was 
on bail earlier for commission of an offence under any other 
c Act suffers from vice of unreasonable classification -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14. 
ss. 2(d), (e) and (f) -
"Continuing unlawful activity", 
"organized crime", and "organized crime syndicate" - Definition 
D of -
HELD: There is no vagMeness in the definitions -
Provisions do not suffer from class legislation and are not 
-i 
viola~ive of Article 14 of the Constitution -
Constitution of 
... 
India, 1950 - Article 14. 
ss. 3(3) and (5) - HELD: High Court has rightly observed 
E· that in such penal provisions mens rea is always presumed as 
.I,.. 
integral part unless excluded expressly or by necessary 
intendment- Sub-sectionsf3)and (5) are to be read in the manner 
as mentioned in the judgment - Criminal Law - Mens rea. 
F 
s. 4 - Words "at any time" - Connotation of - HELD: 
~ 
High Court has rightly held that 1hese words should be read 
to mean at any time after coming into force of the Act and the 
enactment is prospective in operation and not retrospective 
-
Interpretation of Statute -
Prospective operation of 
enactment. 
G 
Interpretation of Constitution: 
).-~· 
Entries in the Lists of Seventh Schedule to the 
Constitution of India - HELD: Must receive liberal construction 
inspired by a broad and general spirit and not in a narrow 
H pedantic sense. 
-STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT SHANTI 
1085 
LAL SHAH & ORS. 
~ 
Interpretation of statutes: 
A 
Presumption as to constitutionality of a statute - HELD: 
There is always a presumption of constitutionality in favour of 
a statute and while construing the same, every legally 
permissible effort should be made to keep the statute within B 
the competence of State legislature. 
Respondent nos. 2 and 3 were arrested under the 
provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime 
Act, 1999 (MCOCA). They filed writ petitions before the 
High Court challenging the provisions of the Act. The c 
High Court struck down ss. 13 to 16 of the Act as being 
beyond the legislative competence of the State 
Legislature; it also struck down sub-section (5) of s.21 of 
the Act, holding the same as violative of provisi

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