9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the act/offence committed prior to the coming into force of MCOCA can be taken into account for prosecution under Section 3(1) of the said Act? Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the act/offence committed prior to the coming into force of MCOCA can be taken into account for prosecution under Section 3(1) of the said Act? Background and Legal Provisions: The petitioner, extradited from Singapore to India in 1995, faced multiple FIRs before and after the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) was extended to Delhi in 2002. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3 of MCOCA, arguing that it violated Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits ex post facto criminal laws. Arguments by the Petitioner: The petitioner contended that acts constituting offences under the IPC before MCOCA's applicability to Delhi could not be prosecuted under Section 3 of MCOCA. The petitioner emphasized that "organized crime" was defined under Section 2(1)(e) of MCOCA and penal consequences were introduced for the first time under Section 3. Therefore, only acts committed after the enactment should be relevant for prosecution under MCOCA. Legal Precedents and Interpretations: The petitioner relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh and Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, to argue that Article 20(1) prohibits convictions and penalties under ex post facto laws. The petitioner further argued that "continuing unlawful activity" as defined in Section 2(1)(d) should only consider acts after MCOCA's enforcement. Counterarguments by Respondents: The respondents, represented by counsels from the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra, argued that the challenge was misconceived. They cited judicial pronouncements upholding the constitutional validity of MCOCA's provisions. The respondents emphasized that the act of continuing unlawful activity was a new offence under MCOCA, and the statute's prospective nature did not violate Article 20(1). Judicial Findings: The court referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in Bharat Shantilal Shah v. The State of Maharashtra, which upheld the constitutional validity of MCOCA, including the definitions of "continuing unlawful activity" and "organized crime." The court noted that the Supreme Court had also upheld these provisions in State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner's challenge lacked merit. It held that the provisions of Section 3 of MCOCA did not violate Article 20(1) as they did not retrospectively create offences. Instead, they addressed continuing unlawful activity, which could include acts committed before MCOCA's enforcement if they formed part of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The court dismissed the petition with costs. Key Judgments Referenced: - Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh - Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai v. State of Gujarat - State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah - Bharat Shantilal Shah v. The State of Maharashtra Final Judgment: The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000, affirming the constitutionality of Section 3 of MCOCA and its applicability to continuing unlawful activities, including those initiated before the Act's enforcement.
|
