2017 (10) TMI 1649 - SC - Indian Laws

Principles of strict construction - Territorial Jurisdiction of filing chargesheets - Commitment of Organised Crime - 39 crimes of different nature including murder, attempt to murder, waging war against the State, extortion, rioting, etc. - Whether charge sheets filed in competent Courts outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi can be taken into account for the purpose of constituting a continuing unlawful activity ? - Whether there can be prosecution under MCOCA without any offence of organised crime being committed within Delhi? - HELD THAT - The principles of strict construction have to be adopted for interpretation of the provisions of MCOCA, which is a penal statute 9 . However, it is no more res integra that even a penal provision should be interpreted to advance the object which the legislature had in view. The interpretation of Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 came up for consideration before this Court and Justice R.F. Nariman 2017 (7) TMI 1081 - SUPREME COURT held It is thus clear on a reading of English, U.S., Australian and our own Supreme Court judgments that the 'Lakshman Rekha' has in fact been extended to move away from the strictly literal Rule of interpretation back to the Rule of the old English case of Heydon, where the Court must have recourse to the purpose, object, text, and context of a particular provision before arriving at a judicial result. The commission of crimes like contract killings, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnappings for ransom, collection of protection money and money laundering, etc. by organised crime syndicates was on the rise. To prevent such organised crime, an immediate need was felt to promulgate a stringent legislation. The Government realized that organised crime syndicates have connections with terrorist gangs and were fostering narcotic terrorism beyond the national boundaries. MCOCA was promulgated with the object of arresting organised crime which was posing a serious threat to the society. The interpretation of the provisions of MCOCA should be made in a manner which would advance the object of MCOCA. Extra Territoriality and Territorial nexus - HELD THAT - The doctrine forbidding extra territorial legislation as held in Macloed's case was subsequently held to be of somewhat obscure extent. Statutes made by a Sovereign States cannot be said to be invalid on the ground of extra territoriality subject to certain conditions as is clear from the judgments referred to supra. The same principle was applied to State legislations in the United States of America. There is no distinction between the applicability of the aforesaid principle to civil or criminal statutes - In the present case, it is sufficient to examine whether there is a territorial nexus between the charge sheets filed in competent Courts within the State of Uttar Pradesh and the State of NCT of Delhi where the Respondents are being prosecuted. The prosecution of the Respondents under MCOCA cannot be said to be invalid on the ground of extra territoriality in case the nexus is sufficiently established. Organised crime is not an activity restricted to a particular State which is apparent from a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons. A restrictive reading of the words competent Court appearing in Section 2 (1)(d) of MCOCA will stultify the object of the Act - If members of an organised crime syndicate indulge in continuing unlawful activity across the country, it cannot by any stretch of imagination said, that there is no nexus between the charge sheets filed in Courts in States other than Delhi and the offence under MCOCA registered in Delhi. In such view, the submission of the Respondents that charge sheets filed in competent Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh should be excluded from consideration cannot be accepted. It is held that 'competent Courts' in the definition of 'continuing unlawful activity' is not restricted to Courts in Delhi alone. Crime is local - HELD THAT - The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents agreed upon that an activity of organized crime in Delhi is a sine qua non for registration of a crime under MCOCA. In the absence of an organized crime being committed in Delhi, the Accused cannot be prosecuted on the basis of charge sheets filed outside Delhi. The words 'competent Court' in Section 2(d) of MCOCA is not restricted to Courts in Delhi and charge sheets filed in Courts in other States can be taken into account for the purpose of constituting continuing unlawful activity - There cannot be a prosecution under MCOCA without an organised crime being committed within Delhi - The judgment of the High Court is upheld though for different reasons. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether charge sheets filed in competent Courts outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi can be taken into account for the purpose of constituting a "continuing unlawful activity".
2. Whether there can be prosecution under MCOCA without any offence of organised crime being committed within Delhi.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Charge Sheets Filed Outside Delhi:
The court examined whether charge sheets filed in competent courts outside the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi can be considered for establishing a "continuing unlawful activity" under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The lower courts had held that only charge sheets filed in Delhi should be considered. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that organized crime is not restricted to a particular state. The court emphasized that a restrictive reading of "competent court" would stultify the object of MCOCA. The court held that charge sheets filed in competent courts outside Delhi can indeed be taken into account, as there is a clear nexus between those charge sheets and the prosecution under MCOCA in Delhi.

2. Prosecution Under MCOCA Without Organised Crime in Delhi:
The court also addressed whether there can be a prosecution under MCOCA without any organized crime being committed within Delhi. The court agreed with the respondents that an activity of organized crime in Delhi is a sine qua non for the registration of a crime under MCOCA. In this case, the court found that there was no organized crime committed within the territory of Delhi. FIR No. 69 of 2007, which was registered on the basis of a complaint by Sudhir Singh, a resident of Varanasi, did not pertain to any criminal activity within Delhi. The call threatening Sudhir Singh was made from a PCO in Varanasi, and there was no evidence of any property belonging to the respondents in Delhi. Consequently, the court held that there was no cause of action for initiating proceedings under MCOCA.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that while charge sheets filed in courts outside Delhi can be considered for establishing a continuing unlawful activity, there must be an organized crime committed within Delhi for prosecution under MCOCA. The court upheld the judgment of the High Court, albeit for different reasons, and disposed of the appeal with the following directions:
(a) The term "competent court" in Section 2(d) of MCOCA is not restricted to courts in Delhi, and charge sheets filed in courts in other states can be considered.
(b) There cannot be a prosecution under MCOCA without an organized crime being committed within Delhi.
(c) The judgment of the High Court is upheld, though for different reasons.