• About
  • Contcat Us
Wednesday, May 21, 2025
Justice Bench
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Forums
  • Online Internship
  • Courses
  • Videos
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Forums
  • Online Internship
  • Courses
  • Videos
No Result
View All Result
justice bench
No Result
View All Result
ADVERTISEMENT
Home News

Supreme Court Rules Use of violence is not always an essential condition in a crime to invoke MCOCA

S Sreedhar by S Sreedhar
May 23, 2022
in News
Reading Time: 5 mins read
0
0
Supreme Court Rules Use of violence is not always an essential condition in a crime to invoke MCOCA

Supreme Court Rules Use of violence is not always an essential condition in a crime to invoke MCOCA

0
SHARES
6
VIEWS

The Supreme court in the case of  Abhishek vs State of Maharashtra held that there may be an advantage to committing a crime that is not immediately related to pecuniary gain, but rather to gaining a strong hold or domination in society.

The Supreme Court ruled last week that actual use of violence is not always a sine qua non (necessary requirement) for activating sections of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA).

The division bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose ruled that threat of violence, intimidation, coercion would fall within the ambit of ‘organised crime’ under MCOCA.

READ ALSO

APERC’s Landmark Ruling Balancing Regulatory Autonomy and Renewable Energy Goals

Supreme Court Declines Order for ECI to Release Polling Booth Vote Counts

“Actual use of violence is not always a sine qua non for an activity falling within the mischief of organised crime, when undertaken by an individual singly or jointly as part of organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. Threat of violence or even intimidation or even coercion would fall within the mischief,”.

the judgment held.

Apart from that, the Court stated that the employment of other illegal measures would be included in the same mischief.

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal against a decision of the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench dismissing Abhishek’s plea challenging the invocation of MCOCA against him.

Abhishek and others were charged with kidnapping a restaurant owner in Nagpur for a ransom of Rs. 20 lakh in a criminal case filed on May 8, 2020.

Following this, the police authorities granted permission to charge the accused under the MCOCA, citing their “continued criminal activity” as Abhishek has been identified in several cases of violence.

Abhishek stated in his defence that the authorities misused MCOCA against him and misinterpreted the special enactment’s requirements.

The Court stated that the authorities’ rigorous adherence to MCOCA provisions cannot be stretched beyond common sense and practical requirements.

“Strict adherence by the authorities concerned to the requirements of MCOCA also cannot be stretched beyond common sense and practical requirements in terms of the letter and spirit of the statute,”.

The Court Stated

To apply MCOCA in a case, authorities must first determine whether the fundamental and threshold requirements set forth in Section 2(1)(d), (e), and (f) are met.

“It is not in doubt that the provisions of MCOCA need to be strictly construed and for their application, an unlawful activity has to fall within the periphery of organised crime….So far as the applicability of the rule of strict construction qua MCOCA is concerned, it being a special penal statute, this much is clear that no one is to be made subject to this law by implication or by presumption; and all doubts concerning its application would, ordinarily, be resolved in favour of the accused,” 

The Court Noted

The rule of strict construction, however, cannot be applied in such a way that renders the statute itself nugatory, the Court stated.

“In other words, the rule of strict construction of a penal statute or a special penal statute is not intended to put all the provisions in such a tight iron cast that they become practically unworkable, and thereby, the entire purpose of the law is defeated,”.

the judges added

However, the appellant’s claim that the use of violence is required to trigger Section 2(1) (e), which deals with organised crime, was rejected by the court.

“A bare look at clause (e) of Section 2(1) of MCOCA makes it clear that ‘organised crime’ means any unlawful activity by an individual singly or jointly, either as a member of organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means. The suggestions on behalf of the appellant to limit the activity only to the use of violence is obviously incorrect when it omits to mention the wide-ranging activities contemplated by clause (e) of Section 2(1) of MCOCA, i.e., threat or violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means,” .

The Court Held

In response to the argument that the authorities must examine only “pecuniary benifit” when utilising this statute, the bench noted it may also be “gaining undue economic or other advantages.”

“The frame of the proposition that the object ought to be gaining pecuniary benefit or other ‘similar’ benefit is not correct as it misses out the specific phraseology of the enactment which refers to undue economic or other advantage apart from pecuniary benefit,”.

The Bench Said.

It further cited a full bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Jagan Gagansingh Nepali @ Jagya, in which it was found that a person perpetrating a crime could gain a strong hold or authority in society or even in the syndicate itself, even if the profit is not immediately monetary.

The bench further considered the fact that all of the charges against the appellant, whether pending or closed, entailed crimes against human life and property, rioting, and the use of lethal weapons to disrupt the peace.

Abhishek had also contended that he had been acquitted in one of the prior cases against him, while the Bombay High Court had quashed the proceedings in the other.

The bench responded by noting that in the acquittal case, the witnesses had become hostile and the primary complainant had failed to appear for deposition. The other case was dismissed due to cross-complaints, and a settlement was reached as a result.

“The submissions on behalf of the appellant for consideration of his case because of application of stringent provisions impinging his fundamental rights does not take away the impact of the blameworthy conduct of the appellant. Any claim towards fundamental rights also cannot be justifiably made without the person concerned himself adhering to and submitting to the process of law.”

The Bench SAid

As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

[Read Judgment]

Abhishek_vs_State_of_MaharashtraDownload
Tags: Abhishek vs State of MaharashtraCrimemcocasupreme courtviolence
ShareTweetSendShare

Related Posts

Sir P.V.R Reddy, IRS Rtd
APERC

APERC’s Landmark Ruling Balancing Regulatory Autonomy and Renewable Energy Goals

May 6, 2025
News

Supreme Court Declines Order for ECI to Release Polling Booth Vote Counts

May 26, 2024
Know More: Sending Demand notices through email or WhatsApp  is valid in cheque dishonor cases: Allahabad High Court
News

Know More: Sending Demand notices through email or WhatsApp is valid in cheque dishonor cases: Allahabad High Court

February 13, 2024
Know More: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai has accepted a bankruptcy petition against Dream11.
News

Know More: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai has accepted a bankruptcy petition against Dream11.

February 13, 2024
The Supreme Court declines to stay the Madras High Court's ruling dismissing the challenge against Google Play's billing policy.
News

The Supreme Court declines to stay the Madras High Court’s ruling dismissing the challenge against Google Play’s billing policy.

February 12, 2024
election commission, supreme court news, Patna Court News, Clock Election symbol, NCP, Sharad Pawar, Ajit Pawar
News

Know More: Ajit Pawar Election symbol clock for NCP by the Election Commission

February 7, 2024
google news
google news

POPULAR NEWS

La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino'z - know more

La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino’z – know more

May 20, 2022
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

June 4, 2022
Know About Registration Of The Partition Document Is Compulsory?

Know About Registration Of The Partition Document Is Compulsory?

January 1, 2024
Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna, and Bela M. Trivedi,

Execution of Document not to be considered based on Admission of Sign on Document Rules Supreme Court

May 12, 2022
multiple bar association enrollment

Can an Advocate Enroll for Multiple Bar Associations?

May 8, 2022

Tags

advocate Algo Legal Allahabad HC Allahabad High Court Anil Deshmukh anticipatory bail Appointment of Judges bail Bombay high court calcutta high court central government cji Collegium Collegium Recommendations contempt of court defamation delhi high court divorce Enforcement Directorate Gujarat High court Gyanvapi Mosque high court judges IPR Judicial Appointments justice bench karnataka high court kerala high court latest judgements law ministry legal news madras high court murder patna high court pil pocso act public interest litigation rajasthan high court Rouse Avenue Court Sequoia Capital study material supreme court Supreme Court Collegium supreme court of india Union Law Ministry varanasi court

APERC’s Landmark Ruling Balancing Regulatory Autonomy and Renewable Energy Goals

by S Sreedhar
May 6, 2025
0
Sir P.V.R Reddy, IRS Rtd
APERC

Precedent No. JB 2025 APERC OP 91 The APERC Headed by Hon'ble Sir P.V.R. Reddy, Member & Chairman (i/c) in...

Read more

Supreme Court Declines Order for ECI to Release Polling Booth Vote Counts

by S Sreedhar
May 26, 2024
0
News

On Friday, the Supreme Court declined to issue an interim order on a petition from the NGO Association for Democratic...

Read more

Know More: Sending Demand notices through email or WhatsApp is valid in cheque dishonor cases: Allahabad High Court

by S Sreedhar
February 13, 2024
0
Know More: Sending Demand notices through email or WhatsApp  is valid in cheque dishonor cases: Allahabad High Court
News

Is a legal notice sent through WhatsApp or email legal?

Read more

Know More: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai has accepted a bankruptcy petition against Dream11.

by S Sreedhar
February 13, 2024
0
Know More: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai has accepted a bankruptcy petition against Dream11.
News

National Company Law Tribunal,NCLT Mumbai,Dream 11

Read more

About

Justice Bench is one of the fastest growing news legal portal in India, for latest Latest Legal News india, Supreme Court judgement updates, High Courts Judgments updates,Law Firms News in india, Law School News, Latest Legal News india visit us.

Follow us

Latest Court News

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Forums
  • Online Internship
  • Courses
  • Videos

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

Welcome Back!

Sign In with Google
OR

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Sign Up with Google
OR

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In