Legal News and Insight around the Globe!

[Landmark Judgement] State of Maharashtra V. Shiva (2015)

Published on: October 9, 2023 at 00:38 IST

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: State of Maharashtra V. Shiva (2015)

Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that commission of an offence by the accused that would constitute ‘continuing unlawful activity’ and the unlawful activities could be said to have continued only if the accused are found to have indulged in an organised crime after the promulgation of the Maharashtra Control of organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). It is held that only if an organised crime is committed by the accused after the promulgation of the MCOCA that he may, on the basis of the previous chargesheets and the cognizance taken by the competent court, be said to have committed an offence under Section 3 of the MCOCA.

9. It was in the above backdrop that the High Court held that once the respondents had been acquitted for the offences punishable under IPC and the Arms Act in Crimes Nos. 37 and 38 of 2001 and once the trial court had recorded an acquittal even for the offence punishable under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act in Mcoca Crimes Nos. 1 and 2 of 2002, all that remained incriminating was the filing of charge-sheets against the respondents in the past and taking of cognizance by the competent court over a period of ten years prior to the enforcement of Mcoca.

The filing of charge-sheets or taking of the cognizance in the same did not, declared the High Court, by itself constitute an offence punishable under Section 3 of Mcoca. That is because the involvement of the respondents in previous offences was just about one requirement but by no means the only requirement which the prosecution has to satisfy to secure a conviction under Mcoca. What was equally, if not, more important was the commission of an offence by the respondents that would constitute “continuing unlawful activity”. So long as that requirement failed, as was the position in the instant case, there was no question of convicting the respondents under Section 3 of Mcoca. That reasoning does not, in our opinion, suffer from any infirmity.

Drafted By Abhijit Mishra