Organized Crime Provisions And Applicability
π What is Organized Crime?
Organized Crime refers to criminal activities carried out by structured groups (often referred to as "syndicates" or "gangs") with the purpose of gaining financial or other benefits through illegal means, such as extortion, contract killings, smuggling, trafficking, terrorism, etc.
Organized crime is distinguished by:
A structured hierarchy
Long-term involvement in crime
Use of violence, threats, or corruption
Use of legal businesses to cover illegal activities
βοΈ Legal Provisions Related to Organized Crime in India
1. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
IPC contains provisions for individual crimes like murder (Section 302), extortion (Section 384), kidnapping (Section 363), etc., but does not define or address "organized crime" as a concept.
Hence, specialized laws were needed.
2. Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA)
The most prominent law dealing specifically with organized crime.
Adopted initially in Maharashtra but later extended to other states like Delhi.
Key Definitions under MCOCA:
Section 2(1)(e): Organised crime means continuing unlawful activity by an individual, either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate.
Section 3: Punishment for organized crime includes death penalty or life imprisonment for death caused, and up to life for other organized crimes.
Section 3(4): If a person abets, conspires, or knowingly facilitates organized crime, they are also liable.
Section 18: Confession made before a police officer of the rank of SP is admissible.
3. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)
Focused more on terrorist organizations, but overlaps with organized crime in cases involving terror financing, weapon trafficking, etc.
4. National Investigation Agency Act, 2008
Grants power to NIA to investigate crimes involving organized crime with national implications, including terror syndicates and drug mafias.
π§ββοΈ Landmark and Notable Case Laws on Organized Crime
1. Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2010)
Facts: Zameer Sheikh was charged under MCOCA for being part of a gang involved in extortion and other crimes. His role was being part of an illegal syndicate that regularly threatened business owners for extortion money.
Issue: Can MCOCA be invoked for repeat offenses that seem to be individual crimes?
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that if there is continuing unlawful activity involving more than one charge-sheeted offense in the past 10 years and involvement of a syndicate, MCOCA provisions apply. Individual crimes are covered if part of a pattern.
Significance: Clarified that MCOCA applies even if the person is not directly involved in every crime, as long as there is collective criminal purpose.
2. Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs. State of Maharashtra (2015)
Facts: In the 2008 Malegaon blast case, Lt. Col. Purohit was charged under MCOCA for allegedly being part of a group that carried out terrorist activities.
Issue: Could MCOCA be applied when the motive seemed to be ideological and not monetary?
Judgment: The Bombay High Court initially applied MCOCA but the Supreme Court later questioned its applicability, stating that MCOCA requires pecuniary or material gains, not ideological objectives alone.
Significance: This case helped define the boundaries of organized crime under MCOCA and stressed the importance of financial motive.
3. State of Maharashtra vs. Bharat Shah (2008)
Facts: Bollywood film financier Bharat Shah was charged under MCOCA for alleged links with the underworld (particularly Dawood Ibrahimβs D-Company).
Issue: Whether conversations intercepted under MCOCA could be used as valid evidence.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of using tapped telephone conversations under MCOCA provisions. It clarified the legal admissibility of electronic surveillance.
Significance: Reinforced that MCOCA permits wider investigation tools including phone tapping, when authorized by competent authorities.
4. Syed Qaimuddin vs. State of Maharashtra (2007)
Facts: The accused was involved in running a betting syndicate and was arrested under MCOCA.
Issue: Whether non-violent crimes like illegal betting amount to organized crime.
Judgment: The court ruled that illegal betting can fall under MCOCA, provided it is continuous, involves a syndicate, and has led to charge-sheets in the past.
Significance: Demonstrated that financial crimes like gambling and betting can also be prosecuted under MCOCA.
5. Baburao Shivram Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra (2010)
Facts: The accused was allegedly running an extortion racket in Pune through local gangs.
Issue: Whether being a "member" of a syndicate is enough, even if no direct violence was committed.
Judgment: The court held that membership and association with an organized crime group are enough to invoke MCOCA, even if the person did not commit the final crime.
Significance: Broadened the scope of criminal liability to include facilitators, financiers, and planners in organized crime.
6. State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (Parliament Attack Case, 2005)
Facts: Attack on the Indian Parliament by a terrorist group. The accused were part of a well-organized conspiracy involving logistical support.
Issue: Though primarily a terrorism case, it included features of organized crime.
Judgment: The Supreme Court discussed the nature of organized terrorist networks, their planning, and execution, acknowledging them as "organized crimes with ideological motives".
Significance: Showed the overlap of organized crime and terrorism, and helped frame investigative approaches.
7. Abu Salem Extradition and Prosecution Case
Facts: Underworld don Abu Salem was extradited from Portugal for involvement in the 1993 Bombay blasts and for being part of D-Company.
Issue: Whether MCOCA could be applied post-extradition.
Judgment: Courts were cautious to apply only those charges permitted under the extradition treaty. But Salem was prosecuted for his involvement in an organized syndicate.
Significance: Demonstrated that international criminal syndicates also fall under organized crime provisions and highlighted legal complexities in applying Indian laws to extradited criminals.
π Summary of Legal and Judicial Insights
| Key Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Organized Crime = Structure + Repetition + Gain | Law requires multiple offenses, group involvement, and material benefit. |
| MCOCA vs. IPC | MCOCA addresses group-based recurring crimes; IPC mainly deals with individual acts. |
| Wider net for liability | Not just executors, but planners, abettors, and facilitators can be prosecuted. |
| Confessions to police | Admissible under MCOCA, unlike general criminal law (where such confessions are inadmissible). |
| Surveillance and wiretaps | MCOCA permits investigative tools like phone tapping with judicial oversight. |
| Overlap with terrorism laws | In many cases, organized crime has cross-border or ideological dimensions, overlapping with UAPA. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments