9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 420, 467, 471 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. In E0005 and E0006, charge-sheets were submitted on 1st of September, 2011 and the learned Judge in sesin of the case took cognizance of the offence on 13th of September, 2011 and 1st of September, 2011 respectively. Accused Mahipal Singh was charge-sheeted in E0007 and E0008 and the Deputy Inspector General (for short DIG ) of CBI granted approval for invoking Section 3 of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as MCOCA ), against him by order dated 18th of October, 2011. Accused Mahipal Singh was further charge-sheeted in E0009 and E0010 and by order dated 14th of January, 2012, the DIG, CBI granted approval for invoking Section 3 of MCOCA against him. Accused Mahipal challenged the orders dated 18th of October, 2011 and 14th of January, 2012 passed by the DIG, CBI invoking Section 3 of MCOCA in the four cases detailed above in four separate writ petitions filed before the Delhi High Court. The investigating agency secured Mahipal Singh's remand under MCOCA from the Designated Court in E0006 and E0007 by separate orders passed on 30th of November, 2011. Accused Mahipal Singh challenged thos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hree years or more and further, the competent court taking cognizance of the offence, have not been satisfied. He submits that in case Nos. E0007 and E0008, DIG gave approval for invoking Section 3 of MCOCA on 18th of October, 2011 and in E0009 and E0010 on 14th of January, 2012 whereas the charge-sheets in E0005 and E0006 were submitted on 1st of September, 2011 and the competent court took cognizance of the offence on 13th of September, 2011 and 1st of September, 2011 respectively. He points out that in all those four cases i.e. E0007, E0008, E0009 and E0010, in which Section 3 of the MCOCA has been invoked, first information reports were registered on 28th of July, 2011 and the examinations were held in January, 2010, November, 2010, June, 2010 and January, 2011 respectively. Therefore, according to Mr. Subramaniam, on the dates the crimes were committed or the cases registered or the crimes came to be known, more than one charge-sheets in respect of offence of specified nature were not submitted within ten years nor the competent court had taken cognizance of the offence in more than one case of specified nature, against the accused. 6. Ms. Jaising, however, contends that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 10. We have given our most anxious consideration to the rival submissions and in the light of what we have observed above, the submissions advanced by Mr. Subramaniam commend us. It is trite that to bring an accused within the mischief of the penal provision, ingredients of the offence have to be satisfied on the date the offence was committed. Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India permits conviction of a person for an offence for violation of law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence. In the case in hand, examinations alleged to have been rigged had taken place in January, 2010, June, 2010, November, 2010 and January, 2011 and the date on which the first information reports were registered, more than one charge-sheets were not filed against the accused for the offence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
