STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus SHIVA@ SHIVAJI RAMAJI SONAWANE & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 211 · Decided: 24-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 9 S.C.R. 211 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
SHIVA@ SHIVAJI RAMAJI SONAWANE & ORS. ETC. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 458-460 of2009) 
JULY24, 2015 
[T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 : s. 3 
A 
B 
- Requirement under- Mere charge sheets in the past not c 
enough to hold the persons accused in such charge sheets 
guilty for offence of organised crime uls. 3 - It is also required 
to prove that the accused continued such unlawful activities 
- It is only if an organised crime is committed by the accused 
after promulgation of MCOCA that he may, seen in the .light D 
of previous charge sf:Jeets and the cognizance taken bythe 
competent court be said to have committed an offence uls. 3 · 
of the Act- Organised crime. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The filing of charge sheets or taking of 
the cog11izance in the same did not by itself constitute 
E 
an offence punishable under Section 3 of the MCOCA. 
That is because the involvement of respondents in F 
previous offences was just about one requirement but 
by no means the only requirement which the 
prosecution has to satisfy to secure a conviction under 
MCOCA. What was equally, if not, more important was · 
the commission of an offence by the respondents that G 
would constitute "continuing unlawful activity". The very 
-
fact that more than one charge sheets had been filed 
against the respondents alleging offences punishable 
with more than three years imprisonment is not enough. 
Continuation of unlawful activities is the second and H 
211 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A equally important requirement that ought to be satisfied. 
It is only if an organised crime is committed by the 
accused after the promulgation of MCOCA that he may, 
seen in the light of the previous charge sheets and the 
cognizance taken by the competent court, be said to have 
B committed an offence under Section 3 of the Act._ [Para 
8] [217-D-H; 218-A-C] 
2. In the case at hand, the offences which the 
respondents are alleged to have committed after the 
c promulgation of MCOCA were not proved against them. 
The acquittal of the respondents in c·rimes No.37 and 
38 of 2001 signified that they were not involved in the 
commission of the offences with which they were 
charged. Not only that the respondents were acquitted 
D of the charge under the Arms Act even in Crimes Case 
No; 1 and 2 of 2002. No appeal against that acquittal was 
filed by the State. This implied that the prosecution had 
failed to prove the second ingredient required for 
E 
completion of an offence under MCOCA. The High Court 
was, therefore, right in holding that Section 3 of the 
MCOCA could not be invoked only on the basis of the 
,previous charge sheets for Section 3 would come into 
play only if the respondents were proved to have 
F committed an off~nce for gain or any pecuniary benefit 
or undue. economic or other advantage after the 
promulgation of MCOCA. [Para 9] [218-D-G] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 458-460 of 2009 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2008 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in 
' 
Criminal Appeal Nos. 717, 664 and 665 of2002 
H 
WITH 
STATEOFMAHARASHTRA v. SHIVA@SHIVAJI 
213 
RAMAJI SONAWANE & ORS. 
Crli.A. Nos. 461-464 of2009 
A 
Dr. R. R. Deshpande, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Yuvraj 
Gaikwad, Prachiti Deshpande, Asha Gopalan Nair and 
Ravindra KeshavraoAdsure, for the Appellant. 
B 
Dr. J.P. Dhanda., Raj Rani Dhanda, Vineet Dhanda, N.A. 
Usmani and I rs had Ahmad for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
T. S. THAKUR, J. 1. 
High Court of Bombay has, by a C 
common order dated 181h November, 2008, impugned in these 
appeals, set aside orders passed by the Special Court under 
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and 
acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them. 
The High Court has relying upon several earlier D 
pronouncements on the subject, held that mere proof of filing 
of charge sheets in the past was not enough to hold the persons 
accused in such charge sheets to be guilty of the offences of 
committing organised crime punishable under Section 3 of 
MCOCA for such charge sheets satisfy but one of the E 
requirements under the said Act. What is according to the High 
Court equally important is to prove that the accused were guilty 
of committing the offence of organised crime by reason of their 
continuing unl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.