2014 (3) TMI 1180 - SC - Indian Laws

Offence or not - act which is not an offence on the date of its commission or the date on which it came to be known - rigging of the result of entrance examination - applicability of provisions of MCOCA cannot be applied in cases where the offence has been committed outside the State of Maharashtra - HELD THAT - It is evident that to come within the mischief of continuing unlawful activity, it is required to be established that the accused is involved in activities prohibited by law which are cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more and in respect thereof, more than one charge-sheets have been filed against such person before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years and that court has taken cognizance of such offence. There may be a case in which the investigating agency does not know exactly the date on which the crime was committed; in our opinion, in such a case the date on which the offence comes to the notice of the investigating agency, the ingredients constituting the offence have to be satisfied. In our opinion, an act which is not an offence on the date of its commission or the date on which it came to be known, cannot be treated as an offence because of certain events taking place later on. We may hasten to add here that there may not be any impediment in complying with the procedural requirement later on in case the ingredients of the offence are satisfied, but satisfying the requirement later on to bring the act within the mischief of penal provision is not permissible. In other words, procedural requirement for prosecution of a person for an offence can later on be satisfied but ingredients constituting the offence must exist on the date the crime is committed or detected. Submission of charge-sheets in more than one case and taking cognizance in such number of cases are ingredients of the offence and have to be satisfied on the date the crime was committed or came to be known. On the date the offence was committed or came to be known, one of the ingredients of the offence, i.e. submission of charge-sheet and cognizance of offence of specified nature in more than one case within the preceding period of ten years, has not been satisfied - there are no other option than to hold that the accused cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 3 of MCOCA. The appeal preferred by the accused is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) in cases involving accused Mahipal Singh.
2. Interpretation of the provisions of MCOCA regarding continuing unlawful activity and submission of charge-sheets.
3. Challenge to the orders of the Deputy Inspector General (DIG), CBI invoking Section 3 of MCOCA.
4. Appeal against the High Court's decision on the invocation of MCOCA.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Application of MCOCA
The case involved Mahipal Singh accused of rigging entrance examinations for medical and veterinary courses. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered multiple cases against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court set aside some orders invoking MCOCA, emphasizing that MCOCA could not be applied in all cases based on the same facts. The accused challenged these orders.

Issue 2: Interpretation of MCOCA Provisions
The key debate centered on the interpretation of MCOCA provisions, specifically regarding "continuing unlawful activity." The law required more than one charge-sheet to be filed within ten years for an offence punishable with three or more years of imprisonment. The court analyzed the timing of charge-sheets, cognizance by the court, and the date of the offence to determine compliance with MCOCA requirements.

Issue 3: Challenge to DIG's Orders
Accused Mahipal Singh challenged the orders of the DIG, CBI invoking Section 3 of MCOCA. The court scrutinized the approval process for invoking MCOCA, emphasizing the need to satisfy the statutory requirements at the time of the offence or its detection. The court assessed the validity of invoking MCOCA based on the facts and legal provisions.

Issue 4: Appeal Against High Court Decision
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and heard arguments from both parties. The accused contended that MCOCA could not be applied due to the timing of charge-sheets and cognizance by the court. The court agreed with the accused's submissions, emphasizing that the ingredients of the offence must be satisfied at the time of the offence or its detection. Consequently, the court allowed the accused's appeal and dismissed the CBI's appeals.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the application of MCOCA, the interpretation of its provisions, challenges to the DIG's orders, and the final decision of the Supreme Court in the appeal against the High Court's ruling.