Read Time: 07 minutes

While interpreting clause (e) of Section 2(1) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA), 1999, the Supreme Court last week observed that 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. This apart, use of other unlawful means would also fall within the same mischief...", further observed a bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose.

With this view, the court refused to limit the activity only to the use of violence, since 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.

Referring to the nature of the activity as contemplated under the Act, the Apex Court held that the requirement of the law was not limited to pecuniary benefits but it could also be of ‘gaining undue economic or other advantage’.

"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", remarked the bench.

These observations were made by the Top Court while hearing an appeal filed by one Abhishek challenging the sanction order issued by the Additional Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City under Section 23(2) of the MCOCA sanctioning his prosecution with five other accused persons for varying offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Arms Act, 1959 as also MCOCA.

It was submitted on Abhishek's behalf that the threshold requirement of his involvement in two or more cases, involving the object of gaining pecuniary or similar benefits is not existing and, therefore, even if the referred cases are taken on their face value, the provisions of MCOCA are not applicable.

Abhisheks' previous involvement in other criminal cases with at least three of them jointly with the alleged team leader was considered by the sanctioning authority while issuing the impugned sanction order and by the High Court while refusing to set aside the same.

A long deal of arguments was advanced before the Court on Abhishek's behalf, stating that since drastic and serious consequences were involved, the provisions under MCOCA had to be strictly construed.

Accordingly, a question arose before the Top Court as to what were the connotations of ‘strict construction’ by the Courts and ‘strict adherence’ by the authorities in the context of an enactment like MCOCA.

Answering the same, the top court held that the rule of strict construction cannot be applied in an impracticable manner so as to render the statute itself nugatory.

"....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....", said the bench.

Thus, while noting that all the contentions urged on behalf of Abhishek were baseless, the Court went on to dismiss the appeal.

Case Title: ABHISHEK vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.