Delhi court discharges 'sole' accused of running organised crime syndicate

By Dhiraj Beniwal
New Delhi [India], July 19 : A Delhi court has discharged an accused from a case registered under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Act (MCOCA) after noting that there is no material to show the existence of an organised crime syndicate. A charge sheet was filed against a lone accused.
The court also said that no effort was made to arrest other members of the crime syndicate.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Babru Bhan of Rohini District Court on Saturday discharged accused Harsimran alias Badal in the case of MCOCA.
"In a nutshell, the prosecution has not produced any material to prima-facie show the existence of an organized crime syndicate. Further, there is no substantial offence or continuous unlawful activity alleged against the accused in this case," ASJ Bhan said in the discharge order.
"In the absence of any substantial offence, the accused cannot be charged and prosecuted merely on the basis of previous chargesheets filed against him. Accused is accordingly discharged," the court ordered on July 15.
The court said that the sole ground for invoking provisions of the MCOC Act is the filing of previous chargesheets for which the accused is already facing trial before the concerned courts.
The judge observed, "If the accused is again prosecuted here under more stringent provisions of the MCOC Act merely on the basis of already pending chargesheets, that would definitely amount to a contravention of protection against double jeopardy stipulated under Article 20 (2) of Indian Constitution and Section 300 Cr.PC."
The perusal of the chargesheet does not show any material to establish the existence of an alleged organized crime syndicate, the Judge said.
The court also said that if there was the existence of some crime syndicate, the investigating officer (IO) should have taken steps to arrest the remaining members and in case they were evading their arrest, he could have initiated proceedings of Proclamation Under sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. against them.
"However, the chargesheet is conspicuously silent about any such exercise carried out by the IO," the court said.
Delhi police had filed a chargesheet against accused Harsimran alias Badal under Section 3(I)(2), (4) MCOC Act.
The investigating officer has mentioned in the chargesheet that from the very initial years of his life, the accused was inclined and indulged in criminal activities. He was first arrested
on August 15, 2011, in case of an attempt to murder at police station Shalimar Bagh. Thereafter, he never looked back and continued with the spree of unlawful activities through his organized crime syndicate.
Delhi police had submitted a list of 17 cases registered against Badal.
Advocate Deepak Sharma, counsel for the accused, pointed out that the previous chargesheets filed by the police against the accused persons had been independently filed.
The counsel argued that on the sole basis of the filing of previous chargesheets, the accused cannot be impleaded under the provisions of the MCOC Act.
In addition to the previous charge sheets, there has to be a continuing unlawful activity
constituting a substantial cognizable offence argued advocate Sharma.
He also raised the contention that mere proof of filing a charge sheet in the past is not enough. It is only one of the requisites for constituting the offence of organized crime.
He further submitted that the chargesheeting accused Harsimran Badal alone indicates towards
absence of the existence of the alleged organized crime syndicate.
In the absence of an organized crime syndicate, the question of the commission of an organized crime on its behalf can logically not arise, argued the counsel.
On the other hand, the Prosecution submitted that the accused Harsimran is continuously indulging in criminal activities since 2011. A perusal of the contents of the case FIRs registered against him would reveal that the criminal activities committed by him are cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment for three years or more.
The Courts of competent jurisdictions have already taken cognizance of more than 12 cases, the prosecutor submitted.