Shweta Tambade
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a man’s plea that challenged a sanction to prosecute him under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA).
The Court observed that he was part of a crime syndicate, which was allegedly involved in extortion charges in 27 criminal cases.
A single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh rejected the plea filed by Vijay Mann alias Kapil under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking quashing of the sanction given for prosecution of him, under the stringent MCOC Act.
The bench said:
“More than 27 cases are pending against the syndicate of which the petitioner is stated to be a part. In any event, approximately 19 cases have already been mentioned in the proposal which forms the basis of the sanction challenged in the case.”
“In the opinion of this court, the said 19 cases pending against the syndicate coupled with the fact that there was sufficient material for the Special Cell authorities to grant sanction in the form of statements recorded, clearly shows that the ingredients to proceed under the Act were satisfied.”
The bench in its December 18 order dismissed the plea saying there is no merit in the present petition and noted that sanction has been granted following the law in the matter.
In a status report filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, it was submitted that Mann is a part of the organized crime syndicate which included Jitender and Gogi as its leaders.
It was observed by the police that the syndicate was extorting money from various liquor vendors.
The petitioner was arrested on November 13, 2018, when the police caught him while he was on his way along with the gang to commit a crime against one of the liquor shop vendors.
There are several FIRs against this particular crime syndicate.
The police added that there are more than 27 FIRs registered in Delhi and the neighbouring areas against this syndicate.
Also, multiple FIRs, as per the Act, are not required only against an individual but also a syndicate as a whole.
Police had relied upon the statements of the co-accused and they had specifically named the petitioner as being part of the group.
Advocate Akhand Pratap Singh, for the petitioner, submitted that on the date when the FIR under the Act was registered, there was only one other FIR that had been lodged against the petitioner.
He added that the two other FIRs were used against him to justify the grant of sanction to prosecute him.
“However, in one of the FIR, the petitioner stood acquitted,” Singh said, saying that the requirements needed under the sections to prosecute the petitioner were not fulfilled.
