Organized Crime Provisions Under Bns
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Section 111 is a dedicated provision to deal with organized crime. It defines and penalizes acts committed by organized criminal groups.
📘 Section 111 of BNS: Organized Crime
✅ Definition of Organized Crime under Section 111
Organized crime includes:
Any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate or gang.
With the objective of gaining material benefit, financial gain, or undue economic advantage.
Includes:
Extortion
Land grabbing
Contract killings
Kidnapping for ransom
Drug trafficking
Illegal arms trade
Cybercrime done by syndicates
White-collar crimes by organized groups
✅ Key Elements to Prove Organized Crime
The accused is part of a criminal syndicate or gang.
There is a pattern or continuity of illegal acts.
The motive is financial or economic gain.
The acts are serious in nature and organized.
⚖️ Punishment under Section 111
| Nature of Crime | Punishment |
|---|---|
| Committing organized crime leading to death | Death or Life imprisonment + fine not less than ₹10 lakhs |
| Other organized crimes | Imprisonment of not less than 5 years, may extend to life + fine not less than ₹5 lakhs |
| Abetting, conspiring, or attempting organized crime | Same as above |
| Harboring a member of organized crime syndicate | 3 years to life + fine |
| Possession of property from organized crime | Imprisonment + fine, and property can be seized |
| Use of organized crime proceeds | Imprisonment up to 3 years + fine |
🔍 Case Laws: Detailed Explanation (More than 5 Cases)
Though BNS is a new law (enacted in 2023), the concept of organized crime has been addressed in various judgments under laws like Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999. These precedents still apply because the BNS draws inspiration from such laws. Here are 6 relevant and detailed cases:
1. Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra (2010)
Court: Supreme Court
Facts: The accused, Zameer, was alleged to be a part of the Chhota Shakeel gang, involved in extortion, threats, and illegal land dealings. MCOCA charges were framed.
Issue: Whether a single offence can be considered “organized crime”?
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that a continuing unlawful activity must involve at least two or more charge sheets filed within 10 years, and the accused must be a part of a syndicate.
Relevance to BNS: Section 111 of BNS requires continuity, just like MCOCA. A single act is insufficient unless it's part of a larger scheme.
2. Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2015)
Court: Bombay High Court
Facts: Purohit was accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case. MCOCA was applied due to alleged links with organized terror groups.
Held: The Court emphasized that terrorist acts committed as part of organized groups fall under organized crime if they aim at spreading fear and gain.
Relevance to BNS: Terror and bombings by criminal groups for ideological or economic goals can qualify under organized crime provisions in BNS.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shah (2008)
Court: Bombay High Court
Facts: Film producer Bharat Shah was charged under MCOCA for alleged links with Dawood Ibrahim's gang to extort Bollywood actors.
Issue: Whether indirect assistance to a syndicate (like finance) is enough?
Held: The court said even financiers and facilitators who knowingly support a crime syndicate fall under organized crime provisions.
Relevance to BNS: Section 111 criminalizes abetment, funding, or facilitation of organized crime.
4. State of Maharashtra v. Jagan @ Jagya Gadya Sutar (2014)
Court: Bombay High Court
Facts: Jagan, a known gangster, was involved in several killings and extortion cases. The prosecution showed a pattern of continuous offences over 10 years.
Held: The Court upheld conviction under MCOCA because of multiple charge sheets and evidence of being part of an organized gang.
Relevance to BNS: Section 111 similarly targets habitual offenders and organized gangs showing criminal continuity.
5. Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2009)
Court: Supreme Court
Facts: The accused challenged MCOCA charges, arguing lack of proof of syndicate.
Held: The Court clarified that mere association with a criminal gang is not enough—there must be evidence of participation in planned, economic-driven organized crime.
Relevance to BNS: Section 111 requires clear links with a syndicate and intentional involvement in organized crimes.
6. Syed Qasim Rizvi v. State of Telangana (2022)
Court: Telangana High Court
Facts: Accused was involved in drug trafficking and illegal arms deals. He was linked with international drug cartels and was part of a local crime syndicate.
Held: The court observed that transnational links and use of digital means (like dark web, crypto payments) are part of modern organized crime.
Relevance to BNS: Section 111 explicitly covers cybercrime, drug trade, and arms trafficking by syndicates.
📝 Summary Table: Key Takeaways
| Case | Key Principle | Relevance to BNS |
|---|---|---|
| Zameer Ahmed | Need for continuity in crimes | Establishes pattern requirement under Section 111 |
| Purohit | Organized terror acts can be organized crime | Expands scope beyond financial motives |
| Bharat Shah | Indirect involvement (like funding) is punishable | Abetment and facilitation covered under BNS |
| Jagan Sutar | Past criminal record + syndicate link = organized crime | Emphasizes habitual criminal activity |
| Iqbal Shaikh | Mere association not enough | Must prove intentional and active involvement |
| Qasim Rizvi | Tech-enabled, transnational crimes are included | BNS targets modern forms of organized crime |
📌 Conclusion
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 takes a modern and comprehensive approach to tackling organized crime through Section 111, influenced by laws like MCOCA. It addresses the changing nature of crime—including cyber, financial, and cross-border elements—and ensures strict punishment for individuals and groups involved.
The above case laws (mostly under MCOCA) are useful in interpreting Section 111, as courts will likely rely on those precedents until sufficient case law under BNS develops.
RELATED Blog
0 comments