LALIT SOMDATTA NAGPAL Vs. SATYAPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek to quash the C.R.No.II-8/2005 registered with Rasayani police station, Raigad on the complaint by PI Shri S.S. Tathaude of the local Crime Branch, Alibag, Raigad and for quashing the investigation proceedings under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, hereinafter called as "the MCOC Act" against the petitioners.

(2.) AMONGST the various grounds, the learned Advocate for the petitioners has vigorously canvassed that once this Court had struck down the applicability of the MCOC Act in relation to the offences under the Essential Commodities Act as well as the other penal statutes, there is an implied bar to invoke the provisions of the MCOC Act again in relation to the same offences merely by adding one another. Considering that the Rasayani police station's cases pertain to the alleged evasion of sales tax, same would not be offences sufficient for application of the provisions of the MCOC Act and even assuming that the petitioners have committed those offences, those offences would not be covered by the offences enumerated under the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the MCOC Act, as observed by the Apex Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2005 (5) SCC 294. It is also the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that no fresh FIR is contemplated under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in relation to an offence or offences for which FIR has already been registered. It is the case of the petitioners that the cases registered at the Rasayani police station appears to have been made on the basis of a fresh FIR in relation to the cases for which already the FIR was registered. It is the case of the petitioners that consequent to fresh FIR under the MCOC Act an investigation pursuant to it is illegal, irregular and without the sanctity of law and the Court cannot take cognizance of the same, as has been held by the Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others, reported in 2001 SCC (Cri.) 1048. It is also the contention of the petitioners that under the unreported judgment dated 11-3-2005 by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.44 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.146 of 2005, it was clearly held that the offences under the Essential Commodities Act at the relevant time were punishable with punishment upto two years and therefore were not sufficient for the purpose of "continuing unlawful activity" within the meaning of the said expression under the provisions of the MCOC Act. Having held so in relation to the petitioners themselves in the said decision, it was not open for the respondents to take shelter of those very cases again for applying the provisions of the MCOC Act by merely adding one more case.

(3.) PRIMA facie it is apparent that the gravamen of the accusation against the petitioners is that they used to procure Naphtha in the name of different companies having licence to deal with such substance but after obtaining the same, it was being used for the purpose different than for which it was procured, and further that it was illegally mixed with petrol and in that regard even bogus sales tax documents were prepared, possibly in connivance with various authorities. Taking advantage of their transport business, Naphtha was being transported to different destinations other than specified places. All these illegal activities were being done by an organised group involving all the petitioners and they thereby used to make illegal financial gains and accumulate wealth by illegal means and even by use of violence.