9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on the factum of information regarding the commission of organized crime by an organized crime syndicate and on being prima facie satisfied about the presence of material on record in that regard, rightly proceeded to accord prior approval for invoking Section 3 of the 2000 Act - the specific role of the concerned Accused is not required to be and is not so mentioned in the stated prior approval. That aspect would be unravelled during the investigation, after registration of offence of organized crime. The High Court, thus, examined the matter by applying erroneous scale. The observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment clearly reveal that it has glossed over the core and tangible facts. The High Court, without analysing the material presented along with chargesheet on the basis of which cognizance has been taken by the competent Court including against the writ Petitioner-Mohan Nayak N., concerning commission of organized crime by the organized crime syndicate of which he is allegedly a member, committed manifest error and exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the chargesheet filed before the competent Court qua the writ Petitioner-Mohan Nayak N. As regards off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 14.08.2018 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City according prior approval to invoke offences Under Section 3 of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 for short, 'the 2000 Act' against Mohan Nayak N. (private Respondent herein) Writ Petitioner before the High Court; not named in FIR No.221/2017 and preliminary chargesheet; shown as accused No.8 in the prior approval and as accused No.11 in the additional chargesheet. being crime registered with Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station as FIR No. 221/2017 dated 05.09.2017 and to enquire into the same. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, be it noted that the present appeals pertain to the incident which had occurred on 05.09.2017 in which one Gauri Lankesh, who was a leading journalist, was shot dead by certain unknown assailants near her house at Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru. Her sister-Kavitha Lankesh (Appellant herein) rushed to the spot and after seeing her sister in a precarious condition, immediately lodged a complaint with the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, which came to be registered for offences punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 for sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cognizance was taken by the competent Court, the private Respondent-Mohan Nayak N. was advised to file Writ Petition No. 9717 of 2019 before the High Court on 25.02.2019, for the following reliefs: PRAYER WHEREFORE, the Petitioner above named most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to; (a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, quashing the order dated: 14.08.2018 passed by the third Respondent herein in No. CRM(1) KCOCA/01/2018 thereby passing an order of approval Under Section 24(1)(a) of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 (herein after referred to as KCOCA Act for short) to invoke the Section 3 of the said Act in Crime No. 221/2017 registered by the fifth Respondent herein for the offences punishable Under Section 302, 120B, 118, 114 read with Section 35 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act and also the additional charge sheet filed by the fourth Respondent herein against the Petitioner in so far as Section 3(i), 3(ii), 3(iii) and 3(iv) of the KCOCA Act, which are produced as ANNEXURES-A & B respectively; and (b) Grant such other and further reliefs as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 3 has rightly invoked Section 2(d) of the Act; (iii) Annexure-A shows that the approval was granted for investigation on due application of mind; (iv) After the charge sheet was filed, the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences and the Petitioner has not sought quashing of the charge sheet or the order taking cognizance, therefore challenge to Annexure-A is not maintainable; (v) The Petitioner filed Crl. P. No. 8325/2018 seeking bail. In that petition, he raised the same contentions. This Court while passing the order rejected the said contention and that order has attained finality. Therefore it is not open to the Petitioner to challenge Annexure-A on the same grounds; (vi) The Petitioner did not file any application for discharge on the same grounds, under such circumstances, Annexure-A is vexatious; & (vii) The judgments relied upon by learned Counsel for the Petitioner are not applicable. The High Court then adverted to the decisions relied upon by the prosecution, namely, Vinod G. Asrani v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 3 SCC 633, John D'Souza v. Assistant Commissioner of Police MANU/MH/0797/2007, Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra and A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State of Karnataka have filed separate appeals before this Court questioning the correctness of the view taken by the High Court. The arguments as canvassed before the High Court have been reiterated by both sides including reliance has been placed on the reported decisions referred hitherto. 13. We have heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Kavitha Lankesh, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned Counsel for the State of Karnataka and Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private Respondent. 14. To recapitulate the relevant factual background, be it noted that FIR Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was registered with Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station being Crime No. 221/2017 dated 05.09.2017 initially for offences punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act at the instance of the Appellant-Kavitha Lankesh against unknown persons. Considering the nature of offence, the Government of Karnataka constituted a SIT vide order dated 06.09.2017 headed by Mr. B.K. Singh, IPS, IGP, Intelligence, Bengaluru. Mr. M.N. Anucheth, IPS, DCP (West) was nominated as the Chief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng in arms to various members of the syndicate since 2012 at various places in and around Karnataka and Maharashtra. After having taken note of these facts, the Commissioner of Police recorded his satisfaction in the following words: Investigation findings have clearly revealed that these members of the organized crime syndicate were in constant touch with one another and actively underwent arms training, arms shooting practice, crude bomb making and indoctrination. They met, conspired and trained at various places in and around Karnataka and Maharashtra with the intention of promoting insurgency. Documents seized during the investigation clearly reveal the intention of the Accused to assassinate 8 writers/thinkers of Karnataka and 26 other writers/thinkers from the rest of the country. Documents seized in the course of investigation conducted reveal the plans of how the organized crime syndicate intended to cause grave disturbance to public order during the release of a movie titled 'Padmaavat' by attacking films theatres where the said movie would have been exhibited by the use of deadly substances like petrol bombs, acid etc. and cause bodily harm to the viewers and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t posed a wrong question to itself which was obviously not relevant at this stage - as to whether Section 3 of the 2000 Act applies to the writ Petitioner-Mohan Nayak N.? Notably, the High Court was not called upon nor has it analysed the entire material collected by the Investigating Agency, which had been made part of the chargesheet filed before the competent Court and in respect of which cognizance is also taken. 17. For the time being for deciding the matter in issue, there is no need to advert to the contents of the chargesheets and the material collated during the investigation by the SIT against each of the Accused in respect of which cognizance has already been taken by the competent Court. 18. The moot question to be answered in these appeals is about the purport of Section 24 of the 2000 Act. Section 24(1)(a), which is crucial for our purpose, reads thus: 24. Cognizance of and investigation into an offence.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code,- (a) No information about the commission of an offence of organized crime under this Act shall be recorded by a police officer without the prior approval of the police officer not below the rank of the Deputy I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , rightly proceeded to accord prior approval for invoking Section 3 of the 2000 Act. The prior approval was not for registering crime against individual offenders as such, but for recording of information regarding commission of an offence of organized crime under the 2000 Act. Therefore, the specific role of the concerned Accused is not required to be and is not so mentioned in the stated prior approval. That aspect would be unravelled during the investigation, after registration of offence of organized crime. The High Court, thus, examined the matter by applying erroneous scale. The observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment clearly reveal that it has glossed over the core and tangible facts. 22. Notably, the High Court, without analysing the material presented along with chargesheet on the basis of which cognizance has been taken by the competent Court including against the writ Petitioner-Mohan Nayak N., concerning commission of organized crime by the organized crime syndicate of which he is allegedly a member, committed manifest error and exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the chargesheet filed before the competent Court qua the writ Petitioner-Mohan Naya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) or 3(5), it can proceed against any person sans such previous offence registered against him, if there is material to indicate that he happens to be a member of the organized crime syndicate who had committed the offences in question and it can be established that there is material about his nexus with the Accused who is a member of the organized crime syndicate. This position is expounded in the case of Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294 which has been quoted with approval in paragraph 85 of the judgment in Prasad Shrikant Purohit supra. The same reads thus: 85. A reading of para 31 in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma case supra shows that in order to invoke Mcoca even if a person may or may not have any direct role to play as regards the commission of an organised crime, if a nexus either with an Accused who is a member of an "organised crime syndicate" or with the offence in the nature of an "organised crime" is established that would attract the invocation of Section 3(2) of Mcoca. Therefore, even if one may not have any direct role to play relating to the commission of an "organised crime", but when the nexus of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompetent authority is not required to wade through the material placed by the Investigating Agency before him along with the proposal for grant of prior approval to ascertain the specific role of each Accused. The competent authority has to focus essentially on the factum whether the information/material reveals the commission of a crime which is an organized crime committed by the organized crime syndicate. In that, the prior approval is qua offence and not the offender as such. As long as the incidents referred to in earlier crimes are committed by a group of persons and one common individual was involved in all the incidents, the offence under the 2000 Act can be invoked. This Court in Prasad Shrikant Purohit supra in paragraphs 61 and 98 expounded that at the stage of taking cognizance, the competent Court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender. This analogy applies even at the stage of grant of prior approval for invocation of provisions of the 2000 Act. The prior sanction Under Section 24(2), however, may require enquiry into the specific role of the offender in the commission of organized crime, namely, he himself singly or jointly or as a member of the organiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior approval dated 14.08.2018 granted by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, in connection with offence registered as Crime No. 221/2017, is valid or otherwise. We have held that the same does not suffer from any infirmity including qua private Respondent-Mohan Nayak N. having noted his intimate nexus with the brain behind the entire event being none other than Amol Kale and master arms trainer Rajesh D. Bangera who are part and parcel of an organized crime syndicate and committed organized crimes as such. 30. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 22.04.2021 passed by the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by Mohan Nayak N. stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. FOOTNOTE:- 1. Not named in FIR No.221/2017; shown as accused No.1 in the preliminary chargesheet and in prior approval and as accused No.17 in the additional chargesheet. 2. Not named in FIR No.221/2017 and in the preliminary chargesheet; shown as accused No.7 in the prior approval and as accused No.2 in the additional chargesheet. 3. Not named in FIR No.221/2017 and in the preliminary chargesheet; shown as accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
