ZAKIR ABDUL MIRAJKAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 9 S.C.R. 150 · Decided: 24-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
ZAKIR ABDUL MIRAJKAR
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1125 of 2022)
AUGUST 24, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,1999 –
ss.2(1)(f), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5), 18, 23 and 427 – Penal Code
1860 – ss. 143, 147, 149, 395, 307, 353, 332, 155, 109, 324, 323
and 427 – Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act 1887 – s. 4
and 5 –Maharashtra Prohibition Act 1949 – s.65(e) – Bombay Police
Act 1951 – s. 37 – Interpretation of the provisions of s.18 MCOCA
– Case of the prosecution was that the appellants are members of
an organized crime syndicate which has engaged in systematic
course of activities for cheating members of public by conducting
the ‘Mumbai Matka’ (Gambling den) – Police personnel raided one
of the Matka den – FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint
made by one of the members of raiding party – During the course
of investigation, the Additional Superintended of Police recorded
the confession made by many of the accused including the
appellants – The competent authority sanctioned the prosecution
of the appellants for the offences under the MCOCA – Appellants
and other accused were arrested – The appellants instituted writ
petition before the High Court for quashing of the FIR, which was
dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, the appellant submitted
that : (i) Confession recorded by an Additional Superintended of
Police (Addl. SP) u/s 18 MCOCA cannot be proved against the
accused (As s.18(1) provides for, confession made by a police officer
“not below the rank of the superintendent of Police” shall be
admissible in trial) and (ii) The provisions of MCOCA have not
been validly invoked – Held:– (i) The expression “rank” must be
understood as a class or category which encompasses multiple posts
– The posts of SP, Addl. SP ,and DCP all fall within the same rank
– (ii) The approval order under s.23(1)(a) MCOCA is with respect
to the offence and not the offender – Though illegal gambling is
not an organized crime but it may be route through which the accused
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 150
150
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
151
were abetting the commission of organized crime, therefore the
appellants may be charged with some offences punishable under
MCOCA in relation to the charge of illegal gambling – Further,
more than one chargesheet is not required to be filed with respect to
each accused.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. It is view of this court that the expression “rank”
must be understood as a class or category which encompasses
multiple posts. The posts of SP, Addl. SP, and DCP all fall within
the same rank as they exercise similar functions and powers and
operate within similar spheres of authority. Every person within
a particular rank will not be of the same seniority. Officers of the
same rank may have been in service for a different number of
years. At times, this may even bear on the post to which they are
appointed but their rank remains undisturbed. A difference in
the seniority of a particular officer is not the same as a difference
in their ranks. The insignia on officers‘ uniforms denote, in this
case, their seniority as well as their designations. [Para 63][197-
F-G]
2. The order of approval under Section 23(1)(a) MCOCA
need not name every accused person at the outset. Often, limited
information is available to the investigating authorities at the time
of recording information about the commission of an offence. The
involvement of persons other than those named initially may come
to light during the course of investigation by the police. In fact,
the very purpose of an investigation is to determine whether a
crime has been committed and if so, to shed light on the details
of the crime including the identity of the perpetrators. This is
true of every crime but especially true in the case of organized
crime, where an organized crime syndicate may consist of scores
of persons involved in unlawful activities in different capacities.
Section 23(1)(a) MCOCA speaks of recording information about
the commission of an offence of organized crime, and not of
recording information about the offender. The competent authority
may record information under Section 23(1)(a) once it is satisfied
that an organized crime has been committed by an organized crime
syndicate. [Para 72][201-D-G]
ZAKIR ABDUL MIRAJKAR v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 

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