ipl spot fixing case, delhi sessions court discharge order

INTHECOURTOFMS.NEENABANSALKRISHNA,ASJ01,NEWDELHI

DISTRICT,PATIALAHOUSECOURTS,

NEWDELHI

SCNo.115/13FIRNo.20/13PS:SpecialCellU/s3/4MCOCA,419,420,120BIPC

Inre:

STATE

Vs.

1.AshwaniAggarwal@TinkuMandi

S/oSh.JaiNarainAggarwal

R/oH.No.B12,TagoreRoad,

AdarshNagar,Delhi

2.AjayGoyal

S/oSh.SureshGoyal

R/oH.No.45D,JhangSociety,

PlotNo.40,Sector13,Rohini

Delhi

3.AmitGupta

S/oLateSatnarainGupta

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors. 1 of 175

R/oH.No.B12,TagoreRoad

AdarshNagar,Delhi

4.DipitGarg@Love

S/oSh.MahenderGarg

R/oH.No.371,RPSDDAFlats

M.S.Park,Shahdara,Delhi

5.RamakantAgarwal

S/oSh.KamalKishoreAgarwal

R/oMohallaCivilLines

PSCityGondia,Distt.Gondia

Maharashtra

6.DeepakKumar@Deepu

S/oSh.DhaniRam

R/oH.No.344,streetNo.3,TripuriTown,Patiala,Punjab.

7.RakeshOberoi@Rocky

S/olateMohinderPalOberoi


R/oH.No.G18/4,Sector15

Rohini,Delhi

8.AjitChandila

S/olateGirirajChandila

R/oVillageBaroli,

PSSector8,Faridabad,Haryana

9.AmitKumarSingh

S/oSh.RamGovindSingh

R/oH.No.38,HariomVilla

NearHomeopathyCollege

Bopal,Ahmedabad,Gujarat

10.ChandreshPatel@Chand

S/oShivLalPatel

R/oFlatNo.A401,SandeepSarovar

4Bungalow,AndheriWestMumbai

PermanentResident:

H.No.C345,VaishaliNagar

Jaipur,Rajasthan


11.MananUBhatt

S/oSh.UpendraKumarBhatt

R/oH.No.19/136,AzadApartment2

HimmatLalParkRoad,Ambavadi

Ahmedabad

12.S.Sreesanth

S/oSh.V.S.Nair

R/oH.No.18,OrionBuilding

SkylineApartments,Edappally

Cochin24

13.PokenJijuJanardhanan@Jiju

S/oSh.P.Janardhanan

R/oValapandal,PSKuthuparamba

DistrictKannur,Kerala

14.AnkeetAnilChavan

S/oSh.AnilM.Chavan


R/oRoomno.2,UltraCooperative

HousingSocietyChawl,

DilipGupteRoad,Mahim

Mumbai16

15.KiranDhole@Munna

S/oSh.PundlikraoDhole

R/oPlotNo.31,Rajnagar,

Suranalayout,KatolRoad,

Nagpur,Maharashtra

16.ManishMathukaraoGuddewar

S/oSh.MadhukarBalwantRaoGuddewar

R/oHousenearoldNagarParishadBuilding,

BehindDurgaMataMandir,PSandDistrict

Gadchiroli,Maharashtra

17.SunilPashamlalBhatia

S/oSh.PashamLalBhatia

R/oFlatno.202,SaiLalitaApartment,

NewColony,Nagpur


Maharashtra

18.BaburaoYadav

S/oLateAlguYadav

R/oPlotNo.799,BehindJaswant

Talkies,BudhNagar,Indora,

PSPanchpawli,Distt.Nagpur,

Maharashtra

19.MohammedYahiya@Yusuf

S/oSh.MohammedAli

R/oFlatno.1201,WingG,GreenPark

building,Oshiwara,AndheriWest,

Mumbai53

20.BabuSunilChanderSaxena

S/oSh.BabuSureshChanderSaxena

R/oPlotno.34812,Flatno.203,

BBlock,NorthWing,Paragon

VenkatadriApartment,

Barkatpura,Hyderabad


21.SyedDurreyAhmed@Sohaib

S/oLateSyedAbdulHafiz

R/oH.No.187198/D/A/10,SultanShahi,Hyderabad,AP.

22.BhupenderNagar

S/oRajenderSinghNagar

R/oH.No.YC526,NTPCSociety

OMEGA1,NearPariChowk

GreaterNoida

23.VikasChaudhary@Vicky

S/oSh.PradeepChaudhary

R/oH.No.K22,NaveenShahdara

Delhi

24.NitinJain@Susu

S/oSh.RajeevJain

R/oH.No.4/2981,ShalimarPark

NewDelhi


25.VinodSharma@Monu

S/oSh.SitaramSharma

R/oH.No.B62,GaliNo.5,

KantiNagarExtension,

KrishnaNagar

Delhi

26.AbhishekShukla

S/oSh.RoopKishoreShukla

R/oFlatno.3,VabhibariCooperative

HousingSocietyno.4,Bunglow,Near

DattaMarg,ChurchLane,

Andheri(West),Mumbai.

Permanentresident:

14,D.N.SinghRoad,

NearDenaBank,BhagalpurCity

Distt.Bhagalpur,Bihar

27.RameshVyas

S/oSh.BajrangLalVyas


R/oFlatno.35,OmDariyaMahal

80,NapeanSeaRoad,Mumbai

28.FirozFaridAnsari

S/oFaridAnsari

R/o105,ShankarBuildingRoomNo.3335,

JaiRajBahaiLane,ShuklajiStreet,

Nagpada,Mumbai.

29.JitenderKumarJain@JeetuTharad

S/0LateGheverChandJain

R/oH.No.1240,ShamalaniPole,

Raipur,Ahmedabad,Gujarat.

30.ChandraPrakashJain@

ChandreshJain@Jupiter

S/oUttamJain,

R/o2221,Maniharankrasta,

MissonpoleBazar,Jaipur,Rajasthan.


31.HarvinderSinghBatra,

S/oLateShriGurbakshSinghBatra,

R/o38/C,MIGFlats,RajouriGarden,NewDelhi.

32.AmanSachdeva,

S/oSh.SomnathSachdeva,

R/o29/2,IndiraVikasColony,

nearNirankariColony,KingswayCamp,

NewDelhi.

33.Mohd.ShakilAmir

S/oMohd.Azam,

R/oPlotno.298,MLAColony,

Roadno.12,BanjaraHill,

HydrabadandVill.Bodhan,

DistrictNizamabad,A.P.

34.AmitKishorchandJisnani,

S/oSh.KishorchandJisnani,

R/o76,C/oBanktoRanapratapChowk,


MangalwariPeth,Town&PoliceStationUmrer,

DistrictNagpur,Maharashtra441203.

35.SanjayAggarwal@ChotuNagpur,

S/oGauriShankarAggarwal,

R/oFlatno.101,OmMansion158,

NewRamdas,PethbehindCentralPoint,

Nagpur,Maharashtra.

36.PraveenKumarjiThakkar@Pintoo

S/oGaneshBhai,

R/o29,SheeshBungalow,

ATTAPattanDistrict,Pattan,Gujarat..Accusedpersons

APPEARANCES

Present: Sh.RajivMohan,Ld.SpecialPPfortheState.

IOAddl.DCPManishiChandraalongwithInsp.KailashBishtandSIRavinderTyagi.

Ms.ManishaBhandari,Sh.Omkar

Shrivastava,DivyadeepChaturvedi,Ld.


CounselforaccusedAshwani

AggarwalandaccusedRamakant

Aggarwal.

Sh.SushilBajajandSh.BhavookChauhan,

Ld.CounselforaccusedAjayGoyal,Amit

GuptaandDipitGarg.

Ld.Counsel,Sh.SanjeevandRamKamal

foraccusedDeepakKumarandRakesh Oberoi

@Rocky.

Sh.RakeshKumar,Sh.AdityaNayyarand

Sh.PromodKumarSachdeva,Ld.Counsels for

accusedAjit Chandila.

Sh.Sh.AmitabNarender.,Ld.Counselfor

accusedAmitKumarSingh.

Sh.R.P.Vyas,Ld.Counselforaccused

ChandreshPatel.

Sh.B.MishraandSh.R.KMishra,Ld.

CounselsforaccusedMananBhatt.

Ms.RebeccaJohn,SeniorAdvocatealong

with Sh.VishalGosain,Sh.KushdeepGaur and

Sh.HarshBora,Ld.Counselsfor accused S.

Sreesanth.

Sh.ParveenNarang,Sh.ShivamT.andSh.

AnishDhingra,Ld.Counselsforaccused Poken

JijuJanardhanan.


Sh.KishoreGayakwardandSh.Santosh

Chavihaa,Ld.CounselsforaccusedAnkeet

Chavan.

Sh.J.P.Sharma,Ld.Counselforaccused

KiranDhole.

Sh.AlokSingh,Ld.Counselforaccused

ManishMathukarao.

Sh.VibhorVardhan,Ld.Counselsfor

accusedBaburaoYadav,MohammedYahiya &

BabuSunilChanderSaxena.

Sh.AdityaNayyar,Ld.Counselforaccused

SyedDurreyAhmed.

Sh.NikilMehta,Ld.Counselforaccused

BhupenderNagar

Sh.NikilMehta,Ld.Counselforaccused

VikasChaudhary&VinodSharma.

Sh.SanjayGautam,Ld.Counselfor

accusedAbhishekShukla.

Sh.PuneetRelan,Ld.Counselforaccused

RameshVyas.

Sh.DixitandMeenuPandey,Ld.Counsels

foraccusedFirozFaridAnsari.

Sh.PuneetRelan,Ld.Counselforaccused

JitendraKumarJain.

Sh.R.K.Thakur,Ld.Counselforaccused

ChandraPrakashJain.

Sh.P.K.Wadhwa,Ld.Counselforaccused

HarvinderSinghBatra.


Sh.ManishArora,Ld.Counselforaccused

AmanSachdeva.

Sh.AdityaNayyar,Ld.Counselaccused

MohdShakilAmir.

Sh.SandeepTyagi,Ld.Counselforaccused

Amit KishorchandJisnani.

Sh.AtulPandyandNeerajKumar,Ld.

CounselsforaccusedSanjayAggarwal.

Ld.CounselSh.BhalenduMishra,Ld.

CounselforaccusedPraveenKumar.G.

Thakkar.

Sh.NikhilMehta,Ld.Counselforaccused

NitinJain.

ORDERONCHARGE:

A charge sheet u/s 419/420/120B IPC and section 3/4 of

MaharashtraControlofOrganizedCrimeAct(MCOCA)wasfiled

against 42 accused persons. Three accused namely, Dawood

Ibrahim,ChotaShakeelandSandeep@Sandihavebeendeclared

ProclaimedOffenderswhilethreeaccused JavedChutani, Salman

@Master and Ehteysham arethethreePakistaniNationalagainst

whomtheproceedingsarestill underway. Outof theremaining36

accused persons three accused namely, Amit Kishore, Aman,

Harvinder havebeenchargesheetedonlyfor Section420/468/471

IPC. Against the remaining 33 accused persons and also 6 not


arrestedaccused, thecharge sheet hasbeen filed u/s3and4

MCOCAandsection419/420IPCreadwithsection120BIPC.

2 Facts in brief, are that the Central Investigating Agency

working under Ministry of Home Affairs shared some secret

informationwhichincludedcertain internationalcell phonenumbers

withtheSpecialCell.Thesecretinformationandthenumberswere

considered as suspected on account of being linked to anti

national/terrorist activities. Some of these numbers alongwith

associated/deducednumbersweretakenonlawfulinterceptionsince

theendofFebruary,2013.Thecontinuousmonitoringandfollowupof

theseinternationalnumbersledtodiscoveryoftipofconspiracywhich

was being carried out for spot/session fixing in the recently

commencedIPLtournament,2013.

3 Theprimarynumberreceivedaspartofsecretinformationwas

aPakistaninumber+923332064488whichwasfoundtobeintouch

withDubainumber+971561363786whichwasinturnfoundtobein

touchwiththemobilenumberwhichwaslaterascertainedtobethe

[email protected]

of Tinku as mentioned in the charge sheet, were also taken on


interception.Fromtheseinterceptedcall,itwasrevealedthatAshwani

AggarwalwasthemainIndianconduitonbehalfofoverseasbased

underworldfororchestratingspot/sessionfixing.Hewasfoundtobe

intouchwith Dr.JavedChutani@Doctorwho,inturnasperthe

confirmation received fromCentral InvestigationAgency, wasclose

associate of Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and Shaikh Shakeel @

Shahid Babu Mohiuddin Sheikh @ Chota Shakeel who was

operatinginIndiaafterDawoodIbrahimescapedfromIndiaafter1993

Mumbai Serial Blast. At present, both Dawood IbrahimandChota

Shakeel are learnt to be stationed in Pakistan and have been

operatingthroughtheirassociatesintheentiremiddleandSouthEast

Asiancountryandarecontinuingtheiractivitiesoforganizedcrime

throughtheirhenchmenandassociatesbasedinIndia.

4 The intercepted calls and technical surveillance of mobile

phones of Tinku revealed that he was in constant touch with two

accusednamely,SunilBhatiaandKiranDhole,whowerefixersand

were in touch with certain cricketers. In the telephonic intercepted

callsbetweenJavedChutaniandTinku,nameofaccused Salman

alsoperkedupinregardtouseofnetbeingmoresafe.


5 Further investigations and mobile phone intercepts revealed

that accused Sunil Bhatia and Kiran Dhole were in touch with

cricketer AjitChandila playingforRajasthanRoyalsteamintheon

goingIPLVImatchesthroughoneManishGuddewarandoneBabu

RaoYadav,bothRanjilevelcricketers.Hewasalsofoundtobein

touchwith manyother fixers/bookiesandwasreceivinghandsome

amountinlieuofhimselfunderperformingormakingotherplayers

underperformasperthebidingofbookieswhichshouldbetermedas

spot/sessionfixing.

6 Furtherscrutinyledtothemobilenumberwhichwasfoundto

beof Manan, who in turn was in touchwith Jiju@PokkenJiju

Janardhan,residentofKeralawhowasintouchwithS.Sreesanth,a

player of Rajasthan Royals team. One Jeetu @Jitender Kumar

Jain,residentofAhmedabadwhowasafinancierbookieandfixer,

wasfoundtobelinkedwith Manan and ChandBhai. AmitKumar

Singh wasalso found to be in touch with Jitu, ChandBhai and

Manan.AjitChandilawasalsofoundtobeintouchwithabookieof

DelhiidentifiedasBhupenderNagar,whointurnwasintouchwith

VickyChaudhary, VinodSharma@MonuandoneSusu@Nitin

JainandwithDeepak,abookieofPunjab.ThisDeepakwaslinkedto


Rocky @Raj and one SandeepSharma who were found to be

financingfixing/bettingactivitiesofDeepak.

7 On05.05.2013,amatchwasplayedbetweenRajasthanRoyals

andPuneWarriersatSawaiMaanSinghStadium,Jaipurfrom2000

hoursonwards.TheinterceptedcallsrevealedthatAjitChandilahad

aconversationwith AmitSinghwhodirectedhimtogiveaway14+

runsbeforethesecondoverofhisbowlingspell, aftergivingapre

decided signal. Ajit bowled first over and gave nine runs. In the

second over, Chandila gave away 14 runs but forgot to give pre

decided signal to the fixer accused Manan which made accused

ChandreshPatelupsetastheycouldnotbookthesession,whichwas

fixedforgains.

8 Likewise,Sreesanthof RajasthanRoyalswasfoundtohave

been fixed by Chandresh and Manan through his friend Jiju for

deliveryofafixedperformanceinthematchscheduledfor09.05.2013

betweenRajasthanRoyalsandKingsXIPunjabatMohali(Punjab),in

lieuofhugeamountofmoney.Amitwasfoundtobeaprimefacilitator

oftheteam.Sreesanthgaveapredeterminedsignalbytuckinghis

hand towel in his trouser at the start of the secondover and did


extendedwarmupexercisesandalsomadebesteffortstogivethe

desirednumberofruns.

9 In the cricket match played between Rajasthan Royals and

MumbaiIndianon15.05.2013,asperthebookiesAnkitChavangive

away14+runsinthepredecidedover.

10 In the intervening night of 15/16 May, 2013 police team

conductedraidinDelhiandMumbai.MumbaiPolicearrestedseven

accusedpersonsnamely, Sreesanth, AnkitChavan, AjitChandila,

Amit KumarSingh, PokenJijuJanardhan, MananUBhatt and

ChandreshPatel.ThepoliceteaminDelhiapprehendedotherseven

accusednamely,AshwaniAggarwal,AjayGoyal,AmitGupta,Dipit

Garg,RamakantAggarwal,DeepakKumarandRakesh@Rocky.

Hugerecoveryofover50mobilephones,6laptops,1ipad,1Dish

TVset topbox, 3 internet cards, 3 Wi Fi routers, 2calculators, 1

multiplemobilechargingplasticbox,1HPprinter,1tvdecodarofset

max, 1 TV decodar of another company, 1 LCD of 40 inches,

handwrittendiaries,papersandvariousothercommunicationmaterial

were recovered fromDelhi and Mumbai. On 19.05.2013, in a raid

conductedatAurangabad,Maharashtra ManishGuddewarandtwo


fixers namely, Kiran Dhole and Sunil Bhatia were arrested. On

21.05.2013BabuRao,residentofNagpur,wasarrestedfromDelhi.

11 Duringtheinterrogationofaccused Chandresh,herevealed

thathealongwithone Amir,hadattemptedtoinfiltrate anotherIPL

team.Onthebasisofrevelation,certainothermobilephoneswere

recovered from accused Amir. The calls of Amir and his other

associatesnamely, Mohd.Yahiya wereintercepted.On24.05.2013,

accused Mohd. Yahiya, resident of Hyderabad was arrested from

Mumbai.On26.05.2013,accusedBabuSunilChanderSaxenawas

arrested from Hyderabad. Accused Syed Durrey Ahmed was

arrested on 27.05.2013. Accused Bhupender was arrested on

27.05.2013fromDelhi.

12 On 01.06.2013, it was revealed that the mobile phone no.

923332064488 belongs to Dawood Ibrahim Chota Shakil and

accordingly,anapprovalunder Section23(1)MCOCAwasgranted

bytheJointCommissionerofPolice,SpecialCell videorderdated

03.06.2013.Accordingly,Section3and4ofMCOCAwasadded.

13 On 08.06.2013 the investigation revealed that accused


Ramesh Bajranglal, a major bookie was closely associated with

syndicateofDawood. Hewasarrestedinthiscaseon08.06.2013.

Accused Firoz Farid Ansari, another close associate of accused

Dawoodwasarrestedon11.06.2013fromMumbai.Hewasfoundto

be in touchwith Salman@Master, aPakistanbasedmemberof

DawoodChotaShakilsyndicate.Onemorefixer/memberofthis

syndicate namely, Jitender Kumar Jain was arrested from

Ahmedabadon27.06.2013.

14 It was thus submitted in the charge sheet, that the

investigations have revealed the spot/session fixing activities that

weregoingoninanorganizedmanner.Largenumberofpeoplewere

placingthebetwithmegabookiesandtheirassociatesresultingin

generationofmoney ondailybasis.Thesettlementofaccountwas

allegedly being done through Hawala channels. It was further

submittedthatthenetworkoftheseactivitiesthatwasspreadoverin

Delhi and other places in India, was being organized by Dawood

Ibrahim syndicate and there are four cases registered against

accusedChotaShakil inwhichaccusedChotaShakil isoneofthe

wanted accused. All these cases related to offences which are

cognizable in nature and having punishment of three years and


above. Thecognizancehasbeen takenby thecourt of competent

jurisdictioninmorethanonecaseintheprecedingtenyears.

15 AccusedDawoodhasbeendeclaredasinternationalterrorist

and is facingstringentsanctionsbyUNSecurityCouncil. Achart

annexedherewithhasbeenfiledtoshowthelinkagesbetweenallthe

accusedwithDawoodIbrahimandChottaShakeel.


16 The charge sheet was filed in the court on 30.07.2013.

Documents were supplied to all the accused under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

17 DetailedargumentshavebeenaddressedbyLd.SpecialPP

Sh.RajivMohanandbyrespectiveLd.Counselonbehalfofallthe

accusedpersons.

ARGUMENTSONBEHALFOFSTATE

18 Themainargumentaddressedby Ld.SpecialPP wasfrom

thestatementofobjectsoftheAct,itisevidentthatthepresentlegal

and adjudicatory system was found incapable of curbing and

controllingthemenaceoforganizedcrime.Therefore,MCOCAwas

enacted to make the offence of organized crime punishable. An

individualcanfallwithinthescopeofMCOCAwhenheisactingeither

singlyorjointlyasamemberofthesyndicate.Anyunlawfulactivity

whichiscommittedinanorganizedmannertogeneratewealthorto

getundueeconomicadvantagewouldfallwithinthescopeofthisAct.

There is clear evidence by virtue of intercepted calls and other

recoveries made fromvarious accusedcoupled with confession of

variousaccusedu/s18ofMCOCAwhicharepreseadmissible,which

prima facie establish theconspiracyandalso themoney flowand


settlementofthemoneygeneratedbybettinginanorganizedmanner.

Reliancehasbeenplacedon theobservationsmadeby theApex

CourtinthecaseofStateofMaharashtrav.V.VishwanathMarana

Shetty wherein the bail was rejected solely on the grounds of

existenceofevidenceintheformofCDRconnectivity,confessional

statementsofcoaccusedandotherevidence.

19 Ithasbeenarguedthatitisnotessentialthatthereshouldbe

atleast two FIR in the preceding 10 years against each of the

accused.TwoFIRsagainstanymemberoftheorganizedsyndicateis

sufficientforinvokingtheprovisionofMCOCA,ifitisestablishedthat

they are the members of organized crime syndicate. For this Ld.

Counsel has relied upon Govind Sakharam Dubey v. State of

Maharashtra,2009allMR(CRI)1903(byBombayHighCourt).This

aspectisalsoclearfromthedefinitionoforganizedcrimebecausein

thisdefinitionitisincorporatedthatsuchactivitymaybepecuniaryor

undueeconomicaladvantageorotheradvantageforhimselforforthe

advantageofanyotherperson.Thelegislaturewascarefultoinclude

facilitators,abettorsandcoconspiratorswhocanbechargedforthe

offenceundersection3(2)ofMCOCA,thoughtheymaynothave

participatedinactualcommissionofcrime.Forthisreliancehasbeen


placed on Mohd. Farrukh Abdul Gaffur and Ors. v. State of

Maharashtra,JT2009(II)SC47andManojRameshMehtav.State

ofMaharashtra,Crl.AppealNo.1868/2008.

20 Also, Dawood and Chota Shakeel are wanted accused in

different charge sheets filed by the CBI in connection with serial

MumbaiBlastsof1993. Inall thesecases, thecourt ofcompetent

jurisdictionhastakencognizanceinlastpreceding10years.Thus,the

activities of DawoodChota Shakeel gang qualify for continuing

unlawfulactivityasdefinedu/s2(d)oftheAct.Itissubmittedthat

in furtherance of this continuing unlawful activity, this gang has

committedthe presentactivitieswhicharethesubjectmatterofthe

investigations.

21 The core syndicate comprises of Dawood, Chota

Shakeel, Javed Chutani (Dubai), Salman (Pakistan), Firoz

(absconding), Ashwani Aggarwal @ Tinku, Ramesh Vyas, Sanjay

Aggarwal@ChhottaNagpur,SunilBhatia,JitenderJain@Jeetuand

ChandreshJain@Jupiter.

22 Itisarguedthattheinterceptedcallsclearlyshowthat


thereexists a crimesyndicate and all theaccusedmembers are

involvedintheorganizedcrime.

23 Thenextargument isthatitisnotnecessarythatthe

saidcriminalcasesregisteredagainsttheaccusedmustbeinregard

to similar offences. It was argued that the five cases registered

againsttheaccusedrevealtheallegationsofcontractkilling,extortion

andviolence.

24 It wasargued thatvariousphonecalls interceptsand

forensicevidenceprimafacieshowsthatitwas Jupiterwhowasin

touch with accused Ashwani Aggarwal, and accused Salman@

Master andRameshVyashavebeentalkingtoeachother.Inturn,

accused Ashwani Aggarwal and Ramesh have been in touch.

Likewise, the nexus between accused Sunil, Kiran, Ashwani and

Ramesh Vyas is also established from the evidence on record.

AccusedDawood,ChotaShakil, Javed,Salman,FirozFaridAnsari,

Ashwani Aggarwal, Ramesh Vyas, Sanjay, Sunil, Chandresh and

Jitenderhavebeenshowntoformtheinnercoresyndicateofwhich

theotheraccusedaremembers.


25 It is thus, argued that there is sufficient material on

recordtoprimafaciemakeoutacaseu/s3and4ofMCOCAagainst

theaccusedpersons.

ARGUMENTSONBEHALFOFACCUSEDPERSONS

26 The mainargument thatisbeingaddressedonbehalfofall

the accused persons is that the provisions of MCOCA are not

attracted in the present case. It has been argued that the first

requirementisthattheremustbeanorganizedcrimesyndicate.

ToqualifyasacrimesyndicatetherehastobeatleasttwoFIRsin

preceding10yearsagainsttheaccusedwhoformthepartofcrime

syndicate.Admittedly,noFIRhaseverbeenregisteredagainstanyof

the accused except Dawood and Chhota Shakeel. The basic

requirementforinvokingMCOCA,itselfisnotsatisfied.

27 Further,thecontinuingunlawfulactivitywhichwasallegedly

undertakenbythecrimesyndicate,whichinfactdoesnotexist,isin

regardtobettingandmatchfixing. However,noneofthefour

FIRswhichareallegedlyregisteredagainstChhotaShakeelandthe

oneFIRagainstDawoodandChhotaShakeelareinregardtobetting

andmatchfixing.


28 Thereisabsolutelynonexusthathasbeenestablishedeven

primafacie,ofanyoftheaccusedwiththisallegedcrimesyndicate.

Moreover,bettingisnotan offenceexceptmaybeunderGambling

Act,butthenit isnotpunishablewithasentenceofthreeyearsor

more.Theoffenceofgamblingdoesnotqualifyasacrimeinregardto

whichMCOCAcanbe invoked. Moreover, there isnoevidenceto

showthataccusedpersonsweremembersof thisorganizedcrime

syndicate.Theentirecaseoftheprosecutionevenifadmitted,does

notprimafacieestablishthattheaccusedweremembersoforganized

crime syndicate or that they had indulged in continuing unlawful

activitiesofanoffencewhichispunishablewithasentenceofthree

years.Itisthus,arguedthatnocaseu/sMCOCAismadeoutagainst

anyoftheaccused.

29 IthasbeenfurtherarguedatlengthbyLd.Counselforeachof

theaccusedthateventheindividualrolethathasbeenassignedto

eachof theaccused,alsodoesnotprimafacieestablishthat they

werepartoftheorganizedcrimesyndicateorthattheyhadcommitted

anyoffenceforwhichchargescanbeleveledagainstthem.Thedetail

argumentsasaddressedbyallthecounselsinthisregardshallbe


consideredinduecourse.

30 Ihaveheardthearugmentsandperusedthewrittenarguments

andalsotherecord.Myobservationsareasunder:

31 Thisisacasewhichraisesseriousconcernsabout

therampantrotthathassetinsports,especiallythecommercial

sportsandtheadequacyofexistingLawstodealeffectivelywith

the prevailing situation in the world of sports. As per the

prosecution,thereexistsacorecrimesyndicateofunderworld

donDawoodIbrahim,ChhotaShakeel,Salman,Ehteshyamwho

are indulging in crimes of violence, extortion, boot legging,

moneylaundering,etc.inanorganizedmanner.Thiscoregroup

through Dr. Javed Chutani is in contact with Mega bookies

namely, Ashwani Aggarwal, Ramesh Vyas, Firoz Farid Ansari,

JitenderJainandChandreshJain@Jupiter. KiranDholeand

SunilBhatiaaretheassociatesofAshwaniAggarwalwhohave

been workingasconduitstoapproachcricketplayersnamely,

AjitChandila,AnkitChavanandSreesanththroughtheirfriends

Jitu Janardhan, Abhishek Shukla and Manan U. Bhatt. Other

persons involved as associates are Babu Rao Yadav, Vikas


Choudhary,NitinJainandVinodSharma.Broadlyspeaking,the

categoriesofpeopleinvolvedinthissyndicateare:

(1) CoreSyndicate;

(2) MegaBookies;

(3) Theconduitsandassociates;and

(4) Compromisedplayers.

32 What is to be considered at this stage is whtehr the

prosecutionhasbeenabletoestablishaprimafaciecaseagainstthe

accusedpersonsunderMCOCAandotherActs.

33 Whileexercisingpowers underSection227 of theCodeof

Criminal Procedure, for considering the question of framing of

charge, the Court undoubtedly has power to sift and weight the

evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a

primafacie case against the accused has been made out. If the

materialplacedbeforetheCourtdisclosesgravesuspicionagainstthe

accused,thentheCourtwouldbefullyjustifiedinframingchargeand

proceedingwith the trial. It wasnoted in thecaseof Unionof

Indiavs.PrafullKumar1979SCC(Criminal)609thattheCourt

cannotactmerelyasapostofficeoramouthpieceoftheprosecution

buthastoconsiderthebroadprobabilitiesofthecase,thetotaleffect

oftheevidenceandthedocumentsproducedbeforetheCourt,butit

shouldnotmakearovinginquiryintotheprosandconsofthematter

andweighthematterasifitisconductingthetrial.


34 ApexCourtinthecaseofSajanKumarVs.CBI(9)SCC

368 laid down the principles for consideration of charge. It was

observed that the test to determine the prima facie case would

dependupon the facts of each case. Where the material placed

beforetheCourtdisclosesgravesuspicion,theCourtwouldbefully

justifiedinframingthechargeandproceedingwiththetrial. Before

framing the charge, the court must apply its judicial mind on the

materialplacedonrecordtosatisfythatthecommissionofoffenceby

theaccusedwaspossible.Further,iftwoviewsarepossibleandone

of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave

suspicion,thetrialCourtwouldbejustifiedtodischargetheaccused.

Atthisstageheisnottoseewhetherthetrialwouldendinconviction

oracquittal.


35 In thecase of GovindSakharamUbhe v. Stateof

Maharashtra,Crl.Appealno.18of2009decidedon11.06.2009

afterconsideringthevariousjudgmentsBombayHighCourtsummed

upthelawatthestageof227Cr.P.C.Itwasstatedthatthecasehas

to be set aside after shifted the material collected upon the

prosecutionthatthereisgroundforpresumingthattheaccusedhas

committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for

proceedingagainsthim.Theinquirymustnotbedirectedtofindout

whether the case will end in conviction. Though roping is not

permissible but the court has to consider whether the material

collected if accepted as it is without being subjected to cross

examinationwouldgiverisetostrongandgravepresumptionabout

thecommissionofoffencebytheaccused.However,ifthescaleasto

theguiltandinnocenceoftheaccusedarefoundthenthecourtmust

proceedwithframingofcharge.Thereisnoquestionofgivingbenefit

ofdoubttotheaccusedatthisstageandtodischargehim.Thiscan

bedoneonlyattheconclusionoftrialbutiftwoviewsarepossible

andthecourtissatisfywiththeevidencegivesrisetosomesuspicion

butnotgravesuspicionitwouldbewellwithintherighttodischarge

theaccused.

36 Inthelightoftheseprinciples,thematerialonrecordhastobe

consideredtoseeifitgivesrisetogravesuspicionoftheoffenceas

definedinMCOCA,beingcommittedbytheaccusedpersons.

37 Beforeconsideringthecaseonmerits,itwouldbeworthwhile

torefertotherelevantprovisionoftheAct.


38 MCOCAwasenactedtomakespecialprovisionforprevention

andcontrolandforcopingwithcriminalactivityofanorganizedcrime

syndicate and gang and for the matters connected therewith or

incidental thereto. The Statement of Object and Reasons for

enactingthisActgivesanimportantinsighttoassesstheintentionof

legislatureformakingthisenactment. It wasstatedthatorganized

crimehasbecomeaseriousthreattothesocietyinthelastfewyears.

Thiscrimehasnonationalboundaryandwasfueledbyillegalwealth

generated by contract killing, extortion, smuggling in contrabands,

illegal trade and narcotics, kidnappings for ransom, collection of

protection money and money laundering, etc. The proportion of

amountsogeneratedwassohugethatithadseriousadverseeffect

ontheeconomy.Itwasseenthattheseorganizedcrimesyndicates

madeacommoncausewith terrorist gangsand fostered terrorism

whichextendedbeyondnationalboundaries.Theexistinglegalframe

workwasfoundtoberatherinadequatetocurborcontrolthemenace

oforganizedcrime.Therefore,itwasdecidedthataspeciallawwith

stringentanddeterrentprovisionstobeenactedtocontrolthemenace

oftheorganizedcrime.

39 Under this Act, it is the membership of a organized crime

syndicate which has been made punishable independent of the

offencethatmaybecommittedbytheaccusedsinglyorjointlyasa

memberoftheorganizedcrimesyndicate.TheprovisionsoftheAct

aresignificanttodepriveapersonofhisrightofclaimataveryinitial

stage of investigation making it extremely difficult for him to even

obtainbail.Otherprovisionsrelatingtoadmissionofoffencecollected

throughelectronicmediahasalsobeenprovided.Itwasobservedin


thecaseofPrafulPatelandLalitSomNagpalthatwhileinterpreting

theprovisionsregardmustbehadthattheprosecutionmustbeable

tomakeitaclearprimafaciecaseagainsttheaccusedpersonsfor

continuationofthetrial.

40 Section 3 Sub Section (i) provides for punishment for

organizedcrime.

41 The term organized crime syndicate is defined under

Section2(f)asunder:

Agroupoftwoormoreperson who,actingeithersinglyor collectively, as a syndicate or a gang indulging in activities of organizedcrime.42 Therefore,organizedcrimesyndicatemeansagroupoftwoor

morepersonsactingeither singlyor collectively, asasyndicateor

gangindulginginactivitiesoforganizedcrime.

43 OrganizedcrimeisdefinedunderSection2(e)asunder:

organizedcrimemeansanycontinuingunlawfulactivityby anindividual,singlyorjointly,eitherasamemberofanorganizedcrime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawfulmeans,withtheobjectiveofgainingpecuniarybenefits,or gainingundueeconomicorotheradvantageforhimselforanyother personorpromotinginsurgency;

Theessentialingredientsoftheorganizedcrimearethatthereis(i)continuingunlawfulactivity,(ii)byanindividual,singlyorjointly,eitherasamemberofanorganizedcrimesyndicateoronbehalfof


such syndicate, (iii) by use of violence or threat of violence orintimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, (iv) with theobjectiveofgainingpecuniarybenefitsforhimselforanyotherpersonorpromotinginsurgency.

44 The term continuing unlawful activity has been defined

underSection1(d)whichreadsasunder:

Anactivity which is prohibited by law and is a cognizable offence punishable with three or more years is undertaken either singlyorjointly,asamemberoforganizedcrimesyndicateinrespect ofwhichmorethanonechargesheethasbeenfieldbeforetheCourt ofcompetentjurisdictionwithintheprecedingperiodoftenyearsand thatcourthastakencognizanceofsuchoffence.

45 Theessentialingredientsofcontinuingunlawfulactivity,are(i)

theact is prohibitedby law for the time being in forcewhich is a

cognizableoffencepunishable with imprisonmentof threeyearsor

more, (ii) undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an

organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, (iii) in

respectofwhichmorethanonechargesheetshavebeenfiledbefore

acompetentCourtwithintheprecedingperiodoftenyearsand(iv)

Courthastakencognizance.

OrganizedCrimeSyndicate

46 Thefirstaspectwhichneedstobeascertainediswhetherthe

prosecutionhasbeenabletoshowtheexistenceofanorganized

crime syndicate. The case of the prosecution is that Dawood

Ibrahim,ChottaShakeelsyndicateforoverlastthirtyyearshavebeen

indulgingincrimesofvarioussophisticationandgravementinpursuit

ofearningillegitimatewealth.Frompettybeginningsassmugglersof


regulatedarticlesbyavoidingcustomsdutytototaldominationofthe

contract killing/protectionmoneyunderbelly tomanufacture/tradeof

narcotics and fake currency and finally to the gravest crime of

financingandexecutingterrorism,thissyndicatehasdevelopedvast

anddeepinterests in therealestateandconstructionactivitiesnot

onlyinIndiabutacrossmanySouth/SouthEastandMidWestAsian

countries. Thissyndicatehasattendedfurtherdiversificationoftheir

illicit activitiestothefieldofcricketasit isahugemoneychurner,

legallyaswellasillegallyintermsofthethenexistingunorganized

bettingmarketsspreadacrossIndia. Theentryofthissyndicatein

thisfixingandbettingmarketwasfeltwiththeintegrationofIndian

local betting markets with their Pakistan and Dubai based

counterparts. Thisintegrationofmarketsalongwithstreamliningof

money transfers through Hawala and certainty of settlements by

musclepoweropenedupahugeavenueofmakingwindfallgainsby

thissyndicate.Ithasbeenthus,concludedthattheprimemoversof

this organized crime syndicate are Dawood Ibrahim and Chotta

Shakeel.

47 Theprosecutionhasclaimedthatonthebasisoftelephonic

intercepts between players and fixers which established the

conspiracyforunlawfulactivitybetweenthecompromisedplayersand

major bookies, the FIR in the present case was registered on

09.05.2013.Theprimarynumberthatwasreceivedaspartofsecret

informationwas+923332064488,aPakistanimobilenumber.Itwas

found that this number was in touch with a Dubai number

+971561363786. TheCentralIntelligenceAgencyhasconfirmedin

their report placed on record in sealed cover that telephone No.


+923332064488 is being used by Dawood Ibrahim and Chotta

Shakeel.Itwasalsofoundthatduringtheconversation,twopersons

werefoundtalkingtoDawoodIbrahimandChottaShakeelbyusinga

Dubainumber971504560616andoneofthemintroducedtheotheras

Javed Chutani. Further, on the scrutiny of mobile number

923332064488(whichwasidentifiedtobeusedbyDawoodIbrahim

andChottaShakeel)itwasfoundtobeintouchwithmobilenumber

971561363786whichwasclaimedtobethatofJavedChutani.

48 Thecaseoftheprosecution,therefore,isthattheorganized

crimesyndicate is that of Dawood IbrahimandChotta Shakeel of

whichalltheotheraccusedarethemembers.

49 The crime syndicate is traced to mobile number

923332064488,aPakintaninumberwhichaccordingtoprosecution

hasbeendisclosedbyCIAtobeusedbyDawoodandChottaSha

keel.Ithasbeenfurtherclaimedbytheprosecutionthattherewasno

recordavailable,butwithgreatdifficultytheyhavebeenabletotrace

outawitnesswhohasidentifiedthevoiceonthesaidmobilenumber

tobethatofDawoodIbrahim.Thesignificantthingtonoteisthatac

cordingtotheprosecutionthisPakistaninumberwasbeingusedby

DawoodIbrahim(whoisbasedinPakistan)andbyChottaShakeel

(whoisbasedinDubai). Itisdifficulttocomprehendastohowthe

samemobilenumberwasbeingusedbytwopersonwhowereplaced

indifferentcountries.

50 It was argued that there was international roaming on this

numberand it wasbeing takenby theconcernedpersonwithhim


whiletravelingtoDubai. Itisafarfetchedconclusionthathasbeen

drawnasthereisnotaniotaofadmissibleevidencetoshowthatthe

saidmobilenumberwasbeingusedbyDawoodIbrahimandChotta

Shakeel. ItissignificanttonotethatadmittedlyChottaShakeelhas

not been identified to be talkingon this number toeither Dawood

Ibrahimor toanyof theotheraccusedwhoareclaimedtobe the

membersofthecrimesyndicate.Thereiscompleteabsenceofany

evidencewhatsoever to show that this numberwasallegedly ever

usedbyChhotaShakeel.

51 Thesecondaspectwhichisclaimedbytheprosecutionisthat

whiletalkingonmobilenumber 923332064488withtheintercepted

callonnumber971504560616on26.03.2013,thepersonontheother

sidehadmadeonepersontalktoanotherpersonplacedinPakistan,

byaddressinghimasChutani. Thesearchwasmadeanditwas

found that Javed Chutani @Doctor was the subscriber of phone

number971561363786andhewasbasedinDubai. Thereisagain

not an iota of evidence except conjectural conclusion of the

prosecution to claim that Javed Chutani is the subscriber of this

mobileorhasbeenusingthismobilenumber.

52 The prosecution has then asserted that there have been

frequent calls between mobile number 971561363786 which is

claimedtobeusedbyJavedChutaniandmobilenumbersofaccused

Ashwani Aggarwal. Further, the CFSL report has conclusively

establishedthatthepersonwhohadtalkedasChutanionPakistani

mobilenumber 923332064488(usedbyDawoodChhotaShakeel)

and the person who had been in touch with accused Ashwani


Aggarwalwasoneandthesameperson. Significantly,thereisno

evidencetoshowthat971561363786mobilenumberhadeitherbeen

subscribedorwasbeingusedbytheaccusedwhohasbeennamed

asDoctorJavedChutani.Theonlybasisforconcludingthisisthatin

thefirst call fromthePakistaninumber, thethird personwhohad

talked in betweenwas introducedasJavedChutani andhis voice

matchedwiththepersontalkingonthemobilenumberwithAshwani

Aggarwal.Thepersonwhowasusingmobilenumber971561363786

(claimedtobeJavedChutani)mayhavebeenconstantlyintouchwith

many Indian members including that of Ashish Agarwal @ Tinku

Mandi,butthatdoesnotshowthatitwasaccusedJavedChutaniwho

hadbeenmakingthosecalls.

53 Itispertinenttomentionthataspertheprosecution,thelink

btween Dawood Ibrahim and Chotta Shakeel, the prime crime

syndicateand that with theotherbookieswas thisJavedChutani.

However, there is no evidence to establish the identity of Javed

Chutaniandhehasnotevenbeenarrestedinthiscase.Also,thereis

nothingonrecordtoshowthatJavedChutaniwasamemberofthe

organizedcrimesyndicateofDawoodIbrahimandChottaShakeel.

There is only oneconversationof 26.03.2013between thealleged

numberofDawoodIbrahimandanothernumberofDubai inwhich

one person who was addressed as Javed Chutani, had a

conversation.Theentireconversationasinterceptedonthesaidday

hasbeen reproduced, but fromthesaid conversationno inference

whatsoever can be drawn that Javed Chutani was a member of

organized crime syndicate. An innocuous interjection cannot be

sufficienttoconcludethatthisJavedChutaniwasapartnerincrime


withDawoodChhotaShakeel.Admittedly,thereisnoFIRregistered

againstJavedChutani,whattotalkofprecedingtenyears.Thereis

notaniotaofevidenceonrecordtoshowthatJavedChutaniwasa

memberoforganizedcrimesyndicateofDawoodIbrahimandChotta

Shakeel. Noneoftheotheraccusedareclaimedtobeindirector

indirecttouchwithDawoodIbrahimandChottaShakeel. Oncethe

only link between Dawood Ibrahim and Chotta Shakeel and other

accused is not established, it cannot be said that whatever the

activitiesthatwerebeingcarriedbyallotheraccused,wasaspartof

organizedcrimesyndicate.

MorethanoneFIRinprecedingtenyears

54 Theotherrequirementforestablishingtheoffencepunishable

under Section 3 of MCOCA is that the said organized crime

syndicatemustbeinvolvedincontinuingunlawfulactivity.

55 Inordertoqualifyascontinuingunlawfulactivityasdefined

undersection2(1)(d)oftheAct,thefollowingrequirementsneedto

besatisfied

a) thatthisisanactivityprohibitedbylaw,whichisacognizableof

fencepunishablewithimprisonmentofthreeyearsormoreun

dertaken,eithersinglyorjointlyasamemberofanorganized

crimesyndicateoronbehalfofsuchsyndicateand:


b) Inrespectofitmorethanonechargesheetmusthavebeenfiled

before a competent court within, the preceding period of 10

yearsandthatcourthastakencognizanceofsuchoffence.

56 In the case of Ranjeet Singh Brahmjeet Singh

Sharma vs. StateofMaharashtra 20055SCC294, it wasob

servedthatinordertoconstitutecontinuingunlawfulactivity,morethanone

chargesheetallegingcommissionofcognizableoffencepunishablewith

imprisonmentofthreeyearsormorehasbeenfiledinrespectoftheal

legedunlawfulactivityundertaken eithersinglyorjointly. In Prafull vs.

StateofMaharashtra (Crl.) 870theBombayHighCourt hasobserved

thatthoughthedefinitionareintertwinedinacyclic manner,buttheyare

clearandunambiguousanditwouldfollow thateachingredientofthe

definitionwouldhavetobeproved.Itwasfurthernotedthatmereproof

offilingchargesheetinthepastisnotenough.Itisonlyoneoftherequi

siteforconstitutingevidenceoforganizedcrime. Ifonlythepastcharge

sheetweresufficienttoconstituteanoffenceoforganizedcrime,thenit

wouldhaveviolatedthemandateofArticle21oftheConstitution.Itisnota

mattersimplyofanarithmaticalequation.Ifunlesstheallegationsofthe

aforesaidchargesheetpointoutthattheoffencewascommittedbytheac

cusedinthecapacityofamemberoforganizedcrimesyndicate,theprovi

sionsofMCOCAcannotbeinvoked.Toputitdifferently,thesaidallega


tionswould not satisfy the requirement contemplatedby theexpression

continuingunlawfulactivity.

57 InthecaseofJaiSinghv.StateofMaharashtra,2003

(3)MaharashtraLJ866 itwasobservedthatthereislotofdifferencebe

tweentheactoractivityitselfbeingtermedorcalledasanoffenceunder

statuteorsuchactoractivitybeingtakenintoconsiderationasoneofthe

requisitefortakingactionunderthestatute.Theformersituationhastosat

isfythemandateunderArticle20(1)oftheConstitution;incaseoflattersit

uation,itstandsontotallydifferentfooting.Forthepurposeoforganized

crimetherehastobeacontinuingunlawfulactivity.Thiscannotbesoun

lessatleasttwochargesheetsarefoundtobelodgedinrelationtoanof

fencepunishablewith threeyears imprisonmentduring theperiodof10

years.

58 Theissuethatisthus,requiredtobeexaminediswhetherthere

existtwoFIRsinthepreceding10yearsinrespectofthecrimesyndicate.

Thefirstaspectwhichneedstobeconsiderediswhetherasperthedefini

tion,2FIRsinthepreceding10yearsisrequiredtoberegisteredagainst

eachmemberofthecrimesyndicateorwhetherthesaid2FIRsagainst

theorganizedcrimesyndicatewouldmeetthisrequirement.


59 This aspect wasconsidered in detail in the case of Govind

SakhaRamUbhevsStateofMaharashtra,CriminalAppealno.18/2009,

decidedon11June,2009,byDivisionbenchofBombayHighCourt. It

wasobservedthatthetermusedinthisdefinitionis inrespectofwhich

morethanonechargesheethasbeenfiled.Thisdoesnotrefertoeach

memberofcrimesyndicate,forinthatcasethewordswouldhavereadas

inrespectofwhommorethanonechargesheethasbeenfiled.Itwas

furtherobservedthatthemembersofcrimesyndicateoperateeithersingly

orjointlyinthecommissionoforganizedcrime.Theyoperateindifferent

modules.Apersonmaybeapartofamodulewhichjointlyundertakeswith

jointcrimeorheissinglyasamemberoforganizedcrimeoronbehalfof

suchsyndicate, takespart. Inboth thesituations,MCOCAwouldapply.

Section3ofActropesapersonwhoasamemberoforganizedcrimesyn

dicate,commitscrimeI.eactsofextortionbygivingthreatsetc.togaineco

nomicadvantageorgainsupremacyasamemberofcrimesyndicate,ei

thersinglyorjointly.Thechargesheetisinrespectoforganizedcrimesyn

dicate. It was therefore, noted that if within theperiodof preceding10

years,morethanonechargesheethasbeenfiledinrespectoforganized

crimecommittedbythemembersof that particular crimesyndicate, the

saidchargesheethadtobetakenagainsteachmemberofthesaidcrime

syndicateforthepurposeofapplicationofActagainsthim,evenifheisin


volvedinonecase.Theorganizedcrimecommittedbyhimwillbepartof

thecontinuingunlawfulactivityoftheorganizedcrimesyndicate.Whatis

importantisthenexusorthelinkofthepersonwiththeorganizedcrime

syndicate.Thislinkisthecruxofthetermunlawfulactivityandifitis

notestablishedsuchpersoncannotberopedin.

60 InthecaseofGovindSakhaRam(supra),therewasnopre

cedingFIRagainsttheappellant,excepttheFIRinwhichMCOCAwasin

vokedagainsthim.Onthesefacts,itwasconcludedthateventhoughthere

wasnoprecedingFIRagainstthisappellant,buthecouldstillbecharged

withMCOCAifitcouldbeshownthattherewere2FIRsinpreceding10

yearsagainsttheorganizedcrimesyndicate,ofwhichhewasapart.

61 Therefore,inordertojudgeiftherewasanycontinuingunlawful

activitybytheorganizedcrimesyndicate,whatisrequiredtobeconsidered

iswhethertherearetwoFIRsinthepreceding10yearsagainstthecrime

syndicate.

62 TheprimarycrimesyndicateisclaimedtobeofDawoodand

Chotashakeel.AspertheprosecutiontheFIRsregisteredagainstthem

areasfollows

AgainstaccusedDawoodIbrahimandChhotaShakeel

Sl. FIR No. Section NameoftheAccusedPersons Date of


No. &PS cognizance

1 FIR No.20/03PSBrihanMumbai

ChotaShakeelandDawoodIbrahmsyndicatealongwith9otheraccused.Bothincolumn12andhavenotchargesheetedsincetheywereabsconding.

Notknown

AgainstaccusedChhotaShakeel


SINo.

FIR NO. &PS

SECTION

NAME OF THEACCUSEDPERSONS

Date of cognizanceinthecourt

1.

FIRNo.

58/2006,

PSDCB

CID,

Mumbai

Section387/34IPC r/wsection3 (1) (i),3 (2), 3(4)MCOCA

AccusedChhotaShakeelincolumnno.12andnotchargesheetedasabsconding.

Sixotheraccusedpersonschargesheetedandfournotchargesheeted

Notknown

2.

FIRNo.03/2007;PS:DCBCIDMumbai

Section302/115/387/34IPC r/wsection3 (1) (i),3 (2), 3(4)MCOCAAct

Chhota Shakeel incolumn no. 12 asabsconding

3.

FIRNo.90/2010PS:DCBCIDMumbai

Section302/34IPC r/wsection120BIPC r/wsection3/25/27ArmsAct r/wsection3 (1) (i),3 (2), 3(4)

Chargesheetednineaccusedpersonsbutno charge sheetagainst accusedChhota Shakeel asabsconding andplaced in columnno.12


MCOCA

4.

FIR No.32/2009PSSpecialCell,Delhi

Section186/353/307/120B IPCr/wsection25/27ArmsAct

Accused ChhotaShakeel not chargesheeted asabsconding andplacedincolumnno.12. Other accusedwere chargesheeted.

63 The bare perusal of above mentioned FIR would show that

thereisonlyoneFIRno.20/03whichisagainstDawoodandChhotaSha

keelwhichisrelieduponbytheprosecutiontoclaimthattheyformeda

crimesyndicateandcommittedcrimeswithotheraccusedpersons.There

quirementof lawisthattheFIRshouldbefiledwithinthepreceding10

yearsinordertoconstitutecontinuingunlawfulactivity.Theorderofthe

courttakingcognizanceonthisFIRhasnotbeenplacedonrecord.Onlyan

orderofsanctionundertheMCOCAhasbeenplaced.Itsperusalshows

thatthefirstsanctionagainst a setofaccusedwasgivenon12.03.2003

andsubsequentsanctionsweregivenagainsttheotheraccusedfromtime

totimeandthelastsanctionagainstthesetofaccusedwhowerearrested

subsequentlywasgrantedbyCommissionerofPolice,Brehanon16Octo

ber2004.FromthisorderofsanctionunderSection23(2)itcanbemade

out that this FIR would have been filed in the Court sometime in

March/April2003.Thoughthisisconjectural,butintheabsenceofcertified


copyoftheorderofthecourtshowingthedateonwhichcognizancehas

beentakenitcanonlybepresumedthatitmayhavebeenfiledinMarchor

April,2003.TheFIRinthepresentcasehasbeenregisteredon19May

2013whichisbeyondtheperiodof10years.ThisFIRwhichistheonlyFIR

whichhasarrayedChotaShakeelandDawoodaspartofcrimesyndicate,

isbeyondtheperiodof10yearsandcannotbeconsideredasoneofthe

FIRsagainsttheorganizedcrimesyndicate.

64 TheotherfourFIRsareagainstChotaShakeelandhisother

gangmembers.AlltheseFIRspertaintomurder,extortion,threat,butin

noneoftheseFIRsithasbeenallegedthatChotaShakeelwasallegedto

beinvolvedinthoseoffencesaspartofcrimesyndicateheadedbyDa

wood.Rather,fromtheperusaloftheFIRsandthechargesheetswhat

emergesisthatChotaShakeelwasthedonandwasrunningtheindepen

dentcrimesyndicatealongwithotheraccusedmentionedinthoseFIR.In

noneofthesecaseshehasbeenshownasapartofcrimesyndicatewith

DawoodAbrahim.

65 Section2(1) (f) provides that anorganizedcrimesyndicate

wouldmeanagroupoftwoormorepersons.Inthepresentcase,thereare

notwoFIRsagainstthecrimesyndicateofDawoodChotaShakeel.


66 The connection between Chota Shakeel and Dawood was

soughttobeestablishedfromFIRno.20/03butthatFIRisnotwithinthe

periodofpreceding10years.TheotherfourFIRsareagainstChhotaSha

keelandothersandinnoneoftheseFIRs,hehasbeenshowntobea

memberorassociateofDawoodIbrahim.Thus,theprosecutionhasfailed

tosatisfytherequirementoftherebeingmorethanoneFIRagainstthe

crimesyndicateinthepreceding10years.

Cognizancebythecourt

67 Anotherconnectedaspectwhichneedstobedwelleduponis

thatinnoneoftheabovementionedFIRs,theaccusedDawoodandChota

Shakeelhavebeenchargesheeted.Inallthesecases,theyhavenotbeen

arrestedastheywereabscondingandhavebeenshownincolumnno.12

ofthechargesheet.Whetherinthisgivensituation,itcanbesaidthatthe

chargesheethasbeenfiledagainstthemandcognizancehasbeentaken

bycourt of competent jurisdiction, which is theessential requirementof

Section2(1)(e)oftheAct.

68 Forthis,onemayrefertosection193oftheCodeofCriminal

Procedurewhichprovidesforcognizanceofoffencesbycourtsofses

sion.Thissectionisnegativelycouchedandprovidesthatcourtsofses

sioncantakenoteofcaseasthecourtoforiginal jurisdictiononlyafter


committalorderispassedbymagistrateunderCodeofCriminalProcedure.

Ontheotherhand,insection190(1)(b)thepowerofmagistratehasbeen

statedtomeanthathecantakecognizanceofanyoffencesubjecttothe

fulfillmentofrequirementsgivenunder(a),(b),(c)andnofurther.Whatnow

needstobeexaminediswhatismeantbycognizance.

69 In AjitKumarPalit vs StateofWestBengalandother,AIR

1963SC765thethreeJudgesbenchoftheApexCourtexplainedthatthe

wordcognizancehasnotesotericormystiquesignificanceincriminallaw

orprocedure.Itmerelymeanstobecomeawareofandwhenusedwithref

erencetoacourtorJudgetotakenoticeofjudicially.

70 It was observed in Emperor vs. Sourindra Mohan

Chuekorbutty, ILR37CAL412, that takingcognizancedoesnot in

volveanyformalaction;orindeedactionofanykindbutoccursassoonas

Magistrateapplieshismindtothesuspectedcommissionofanoffence.

71 InR.RCharivs. StateofUP,AIR1951SC207,Itwasnoted

thatwordcognizancewasusedinthecourttoindicatethepointwhen

theMagistratetakesjudicialnoticeofanoffence.

72 In Fakrudin Ahmed vs. State of Uttranchal and another,

(2008)17SCC157,whileexplainingthetermcognizance, it wasex

plainedthatitisonlywhentheMagistrateapplieshismindandissatisfied


thattheallegations,ifproved,wouldconstituteanoffenceanddecidetoini

tiatetheproceedingsagainsttheallegedoffenderthatitcanbepositively

statedthatcognizanceisinregardtotheoffenceandnottheoffender.

73 Aftermakingreferencetoalltheaforementionedjudgments,the

ApexcourtinthecasePrasadSriKantProhitvsStateofMaharashtra,

in CriminalAppealno.19611970andotherappealsarisingoutofSLP

criminalno.190771of2011decidedon15.04.15,summedupthatcog

nizancewouldtakeplaceatapointwhentheMagistratefirsttakesjudicial

noticeoftheoffenceeitheronacomplaintorapolicereportoruponinfor

mationofpersonotherthanthepoliceofficer.Takingjudicialnoticeisnoth

ingbutperusingthereportofthepoliceofficerfor proceedingfurtheron

thatreportbyopeningthefileandthereafter,takingfurtherstepstoensure

thepresenceof the accusedandall other consequential steps at later

stagedependinguponthenatureofoffence,ortopassnecessaryorderof

committaltocourtofsessions.

74 Thequestionastotheimplicationofasupplementaryreport

filedbytheinvestigatingagencyundersection173(8)ofCr.P.C.wascon

sideredinthecaseof StateofWestBengal vs.SalapServiceStation

andothers,1994(3)SupplSIC318.Itwasstatedthatthequestionoftak

ingcognizancedoesnotariseatthisstagesincecognizancehasalready

been takenon thebasis ofmainchargesheet. All that section 173(8)


Cr.P.C. laysdownisthattheinvestigatingagencycancarryonfurtherin

vestigationinrespectoftheoffenceafterthereportundersubsection2

hasbeenfiled.Thefurtherinvestigationmaydisclosesomefreshoffences,

itsconnectionwiththetransactionwhichissubjectmatteroftheearlierre

port.Section173(8)Cr.P.C.isonlytoenabletheinvestigatingagencyto

gatherfurtherinvestigation,whichcannotbefrustrated.

75 InthecaseofPurohit(Supra),theApexcourtthus,notedthat

thefilingofsupplementarychargesheetdoesnotandwouldnotamountto

takingcognizancebythecourtafreshagainstwhomsoeverwithrespectto

verysameoffence.Bywayofsupplementarychargesheetsomemoreac

cusedmayalsobeaddedtotheoffencewithrespecttowhichthecog

nizanceistakenbythejudicialMagistrate.Cognizanceistakenofthemain

offenceagainsttheaccusedalreadyarrayed.Thesupplementarycharge

sheetmayprovidescopefor takingcognizanceofadditional chargesor

againstmoreaccusedwithreferencetotheoffence alreadytakencog

nizanceof.

76 Thispositionwasclarified in thecaseof C.R.E.FFinance

LimitedvsShriShantiHomes(PvtLtd)andanother,2005(7)SCC467,

whereinitwasagainreiteratedthatcognizanceistakenofoffenceandnot

theoffenderandtherefore,oncethecourtissatisfiedthatthecomplaint

disclosesthecommissionofoffenceandthereisnoreasontorejectthe


complaintandproceedfurtherwiththematter. Thecognizanceisthus,

takenattheinitialstagewhentheMagistrateperusesthecomplaintwitha

viewtoascertainwhetherthecommissionofoffenceisdisclosed.

77 Inthecaseof Purohit(Supra),itwasconcludedthatifthe

cognizanceofoffenceistakenbytheMagistrateundersection190Cr.P.C

onthemainchargesheet,thiswouldsatisfyandfulfilltherequirementof

cognizanceofoffencebyfilingofmorethanonechargesheetbeforethe

competentcourtinpreceding10yearsasstipulatedundersection2(1)(d)

ofMCOCA,eveniftheaccusedinquestionhasbeennamedinsupplemen

tarychargesheetwhichmaybefiledaftertheregistrationofFIRunder

MCOCA.

78 Inthepresentcase,innoneoftheFIRsonwhichtheprosecu

tionhasrelied,theaccusedDawoodorChotaShakeelhadbeencharge

sheetedandhavebeenplacedincolumnno. 12. Inthecircumstances,

thereisnochargesheetwhatsoeverthathasbeenfiledagainstDawood

and/orChhotaShakeelinanyofthesecases.Butinviewofthediscussion

above,eventhoughinallthesecasescognizancehadbeentakenbycourt

ofcompetentjurisdictionoftheoffenceinthechargesheetsthatwerefiled

againsttheotheraccused,butthereareinfact,nochargesheetsinthese

FIRsagainstthemwichmaybeconsideredtoascertainiftherequirement

offilingofmorethanoneFIRinpreceding10yearsissatisfied.Therecord


showsthatnochargesheetinanyofthecasesrelieduponbytheprosecu

tionhasbeenfiledagainstDawoodorChottaShakeel. HadanySupple

mentarychargesheetbeenfiled,itcouldrelatebacktothedateonwhich

cognizancewastakeninmainchargesheet. Butinthepresentcase,no

chargesheetinanyofthethesecaseshasbeenfiledbytheprosecution

againstthem.

LinkorNexuswithCrimeSyndicate

79 Thequestionwhichnowcallsforattentioniswhethermerefilingof

FIRissufficientorthereismorewhichisrequiredtobeestablished.

80 Whileconsideringmorethan1F.I.Rinthepreceding10yearswhat

isrequiredforthepurposeofsatisfyingtherequirementofcontinuingun

lawfulactivity,wasexplainedinthecaseof LalitSomnathNagpal

(supra)thatitwouldnecessarilyentailcontinuousengagementinunlaw

fulactivityandtherehastobealivelinkbetweenallthedifferentoffences.

81 Likewise, in the case of Ranjeet Singh(supra) it was ex

plained,thattheremayormaynotbeanydirectroletoplayasregards

commissionofanorganizedcrime,butunlessanexuswiththeaccused

whoisthememberoftheorganizedcrimesyndicateoranoffenceinthe

natureofcrimeisestablished,onlybyshowingsomeallegedindulgenceof


theappellant,,hecannotbesaidtohavecommittedtheoffenceoforga

nizedcrime.

82 InthecaseofPrasadSriKantPurohit(Supra),theApexcourt

hadnotedthatinorderto offenceofcontinuing unlawfulactivityafterthe

thirdoccurrence,theinvolvementoftheaccusedmusthavebeenasmem

berofthesamegang.Inotherwords,evenifitwasheldthatmemberofor

ganizedcrimesyndicatesinglyorjointlyparticipatedonbehalfoforganized

crimesyndicate withreference tosuchparticipation having takenplace,

whatistobeensureditthatinallthreecasesthesamegangI.e.organized

crimesyndicatemusthavebeeninvolved.

83 InGovindSakhaRamUbe(supra) itwasemphasized

thatwhatisimportanttoqualifyascontinuingunlawfulactivityonbehalfof

organizedcrimesyndicateisthat,theremustbeanexusorlinkoftheac

cused with the organized crime syndicate. In the case of Prafula vs

Stateof Maharashtra, 2009 All LR (Criminal) 870, Bombay High

Court,areferencewasmadetothecaseof RanjeetSingh(supra)

anditwasconcludedthatmereproofoffilingofchargesheetinthepastis

notenough.Itisonlyoneoftherequisiteforconstitutingoffenceoforga

nizedcrime.Ifonlythepastchargesheetsweretobeenoughtoconstitute

theoffenceofcrimeitwouldhaveoffendedthemandateofArticle20(1)of

theConstitution.Itisnotamatterofsimplyoneofarithmeticalequation.A


nexusoftheaccusedwiththeorganizedcrimesyndicatehastobeestab

lished. If thepreviouscriminal historyofaccuseddenotesthat theyhad

beenchargedand tried for thoseoffencesseparately beforecompetent

court,thereisnoquestionofsuchoffencesconstitutingtheoffenceoforga

nizedcrime.

84 InStateofMaharashtravs.RahulRamchandraDarud,2011

(SCC)OnlineBombay605,aftermakingareferencetotheaforementioned

judgmentsitwasconcludedthatwherethenexusofcommissionofoffence

bytheaccusedinthecapacityofamemberoforganizedcrimesyndicates

isnotestablished,thenMCOCAcannotbeinvokedasitdoesnotsatisfy

themandatoryrequirementcontemplatedbyexpressioncontinuingunlaw

fulactivity.

85 Inthepresentcase,thoughthereare 4 chargesheetsinthe

preceding10yearsthathavebeenfiledagainstChotaShakeel,butnoneof

thesechargesheetsshowthathewasapartofthiscrimesyndicateof

whichDawoodwastheHeadoramember.Hence,nonexusbetweenDa

woodandChotta Shakeel has beenestablished and thus, FIRagainst

ChottaShakeel cannot beconsideredagainst everymember of alleged

crimesyndicate.TherequirementofmorethanoneFIRinthepreceding10

yearsagainstorganizedcrimesyndicateistherefore,notsatisfied.


TerritorialJurisdiction

86 Anotheraspectwhichneedstobeconsideredistheaspectof

territorialjurisdiction.

87 Section6oftheActdealswiththejurisdictionofspecialcourt.

Itprovidesthattheoffencepunishableunderthis Actshallbetriableonly

bythespecialcourtwithinwhoselocaljurisdiction,itwascommitted.

88 Theaspectofterritorialjurisdictionwasconsideredinthecase

of State v. Satya Prakash, Criminal MC No. 2138/2010 decided on

03.11.2011(Delhi)whereinoutof eightFIRs,twowerefiledinDelhiand

restsixinDistrictGaziabad,UP.ThecognizanceonthesesixFIRscould

notbetakeninDelhiaschargesheetcouldnothavebeenfiledinDelhi.

OutofthetwoFIRsinDelhi,onewasagainstthetwoaccusedinwhichal

legationsofextortionweremade.However,inthesecondFIRtheinvolve

mentoftheseaccusedwasnotshown asmembersoforganizedcrime

syndicate.ItwasobservedthatnosanctionunderSection23 couldhave

beengranted.Intheabsenceofvalidsanctionitwasheldthatthedesig

natedcourthasnojurisdictiontotrythesaidoffence.

89 InthelightofSection6of the Act,theSpecialCourtatDelhi

canhavejurisdictionifthechargesheetspertaintothecasesregisteredin

DelhionwhichcognizancecouldbetakenbycompetentcourtinDelhi.I f


twoprecedingFIRsarenotwithinthejurisdictionofDelhi,thenthesanc

tiongrantedonthebasisofsuchchargesheetsisinvalidandnoprosecu

tionunderMCOCAcanbecarriedout.Similararetheobservationsmade

inthecaseofBrijeshvsArunKumar,Crl.Appealno.1358decided

on16.04.2015(DelhiHighCourt).

90 In the present case there is only one charge sheet against

ChotaShakeelwhichhasbeenfiledinDelhiinwhichChottalShakeelhas

beenshownincolumnNo.12andinthemainchargesheet againstother

accused,thecognizancehasbeentakenbythecourtofcompetentjurisdic

tion.TheremainingFIRswereallregisteredinMumbai.Therequirement

ofmorethan one FIRonwhichcognizancehasbeentakenbycourt of

competentjurisdictionwhich is Delhiinthepresentcase,isnotsatisfied.

TheSanctionunderSection23oftheActhasnotbeengrantedvalidlyand

hence,nochargecanbeframedunderMCOCAagainstanyoftheaccused

persons,onthistechnicalground,aswell.

UseofViolence,coercionintimidationorotherunlawfulmeans

91 FromtheverydefinitionoforganizedcrimeunderSection2(e)it

is evident thatnoteveryunlawful activity which is acognizableoffence

wouldbeencompassedinthedefinitionoforgaizedcrime.Ithastoneces

sarilyinvolvetheuseofviolation,coercion,intimidationorotherunlawful


means.TheBombayHighCourtinMadanvsStateofMaharashtra,2009

allLR(Criminal)447hadobservedthat'organizedcrime'wasnotsynony

mouswithcontinuingunlawfulactivity.Iforganizedcrimewastoreferonly

tofilingofmorethanonechargesheet,thentheentireSection18ofthe

Actwouldhavebecomeredundantasfilingoftwochargesheets perse

would be sufficient evidence to conclude the commission of organized

crime.Also,therewouldbenoneedtoexamineanywitnessandSection

19wouldberedundant.Further,theremaybenooccasiontocarryoutin

vestigationotherthancollectingcopyofthechargesheet.Consequently,it

wouldbe unnecessarytoseeksanctionofprosecutionaftercollectionof

suchchargesheet.Therefore,filingofmorethanonechargesheetbefore

thecompetentcourtisoneoftheincidenttoestablishcontinuingunlawful

activityanditmustbefurthershownthattherewashugeviolence,threat,

intimidationorcoercionbythemembersoftheorganizedcrimesyndicate.

Thedefinitioncontinuingofunlawfulactivityusesthewordsviolence,threat

ofviolence,intimidationorcoercion.Themeaningofthesewordsasde

finedinOxfordDictionary(5thEdition)areasunder:

a)Threatoppression,compulsion,misery,danger,trytoforceorinduce

throughmeansofrebuke,threat,vehemence;

b) Violence stateof quality ofbeing viiolent inaction; Great forceor

strengthinoperation;vehemence,severity,intensity.


c)Intimidationactionofintimidatingsomeone,especiallyinordertoin

terfere with the free exercise of political or social rights.

d) Coercion constraint, restraint, compulsion, controllingofactionby

force;compression;physicalpressure.

92 Inthecaseof RanjeetSingh(supra),itwasmentionedthat

word'violence'hasbeenusedonlyinSection146andSection153ofIPC.

Word'Intimidation'alonehasnotbeenusedinIPCexcept,underSection

506whichreferstocriminalintimidation.Theword'coercion'findsplace

onlyintheContractAct.

93 Inthiscase,it wasobservedthatif thewordsunlawfulmeans

wastobewidelyconstruedsoastoincludeanyorotherunlawfulmeans,

thentheoffencesofcheating,criminalbreachoftrustwouldalsobein

cludedwhichprimafacie,doesnotappearto beintendedbytheParlia

ment.Itwasfurtherobservedthatthequestionwhetherunlawfulmeans

mustbeconstruedejusdumgeneriswiththeprecedingwords,wasleft

open.

94 ThisaspectwasconsideredbytheDelhiHighCourtinthecaseDr.

MahipalSinghvs.CBI2012Crl.LawJournal3110.Itwasobserved

that the principle of ejusdumgeneris would apply whenparticular

wordspertainingtoaclass,categoryorgenusarefollowedby general

words.Insuchacase,thegeneralwordsareconstruedlimitedtothings

ofthesamekindasthosespecified.Therulereflectsanattempttorecon

ciletheincompatibilitybetweenspecificandgeneralwordsinviewofother

rulesofinterpretationthatallwordsinastatutearegiveneffect,ifpossi


ble. Thatastatuteneedstobereadasawholeandthatnowordsina

Statutearepresumedtobesuperfluous.Theruleappliesonlywhen:

a) The Statute enumerates the specific words ; b) The space of enumeration constitutes a class or category;c) That class or category is not exhorted by the enumeration;d) Thegeneraltermfollowtheenumeration;and

e) Thereisnoindicationofadifferentlegislativeintent.

95 Inthecaseof UnitedTownElectric vs. AttorneyGen

eralforNewfoundLand19391AllEnglandReporter423(PC),it

wasnotedthatrulecannotbeappliedunlessthereisagenusconstituted

oracategorydisclosed.Iftheprecedingwordsconstitutedescriptionofa

completegenus,therulehasnoapplication.Similararetheobservation

madeinAllenvs.Emmerson19441AllEnglandReporter344(KBD)

wherein, it washeld that to invoke theapplication of ejusdumgeneris,

theremustbeadistinctgenusorcategory.Wherethisislacking,therule

cannotapply.

96 Aftermakingthereferencetothesejudgmentsinthecaseof Dr.

MahipalSingh(Supra)itwasobservedthatthetermsviolence,coer

cionandintimidationdonotbelongtothesamespecificgenusandthus,

thewordsunlawfulmeanscannotbereadejusdumgeneristothepre

cedingwordsandarerequiredtobewidelyconstrued,keepinginmindthe

intendedobjectoftheStatute.Itwasfurtherobservedthatthoughsimple

offenceofforgeryandcheatedcommittedmorethanoncewouldnotcome

withintheambitoforganizedcrime.However,thesamewouldnotbeap

plicabletoacasewherecheatingandforgeryaredonecontinuouslysoas

torig/manipulate theresultoftheexamination. Aspertheobjectsand

aimsofMCOCA,theactivitiesintendedtobe curbedwerementionedas


killing, extortion, smuggling, terrorism, illegal tradeandnarcoticsmoney

laundering,etc.Theoffencesofforgeryandcheatingbypersonationetc.

arealsocoveredunderthePreventionofMoneyLaunderingAct,2002.In

viewoftheaimsandobjectsofMCOCA,ifcheatingandforgeryiscommit

tedinamannerasanorganizedcrime,particularlyaffectingtheresultsof

examinationandthus,destabilizingtheeducationsystem,thesaidactivity

wouldcertainlyfallwithintheambitofunlawfulmeansasrequiredinorga

nizedcrimes.Thesaidunlawfulactivityhassomesemblancetocoercion,

intimidationetc.,asthesameisperformedbymanipulatingatanexten

sivelevel.

97 ThiscanbebestunderstoodinthefactsofLalitSomduttNag

pal(Supra)casewhere,theviolationofSalesTaxandExciseLawswas

heldbytheirLordshipstobenotintendedtobethebasisofapplicationof

provisionsofMCOCA.

98 Inthepresentcase,theorganizedcrimewhichistargetedisorga

nizedbettinginthegameofIPL6includingtheconsequentactivityoflaun

deringofmoneysogeneratedfromtheactivityofbettingandmatchfix

ing bymajorbookieslikeAshwaniAggarwal,RameshVyas,Chandresh

Jain,JitenderJain,FirozAnsarwhohavetheirnetworksthroughtheiras

sociates and links to approach cricket players like S. Sreesant, Ankit

chavhanandAjitChandilaformatchfixing.Itisallegedthattheseactivities

involvetransactionsofhugeamountsandexchangeofmoneybetween

bookies,playersandotherstakeholders.Ithasbeenvaguelyclaimedthat

attimesthreatsareextendedincaseofbreachofagreements.However,

consideringthenatureof thesetransactionsofmatchfixingandbetting

whichworkthroughwidespreadnetwork,itcanbevisualizedthatelement

ofintimidationandcoercionwouldinherentlybeinvolvedinthesedealings.


99 Theactivitiesofbettingandmatchfixingcouldqualifyasanyun

lawful activity involvingcoercionand intimidationwhichareundertaken

withtheobjectofpecuniarygain.

MoneyLaunderingandMatchfixingandbetting

100 Thenecessaryincidentofsportsbettingandmatchfixingisgener

atingstaggeringamountsofblackmoney.Moneylaunderingisanessen

tialcomponent,aswithoutitcrimereallywouldnotbe.Moneylaunderingis

aprocesswhichtransformstheproceedsofcrimeintoassetsthatappear

legitimateinnature,exampleproperlyfortpolios,luxurygoodssuchasart

worksoraccountsatreputablebanks.Thelaunderingofsuchdirtymoney

perpetuatesthepowerandinfluenceofsuchcriminalenterprisesbyre

sourcingbribingandcorruptionofkeypoliticalandlawenforcementfigures

andthus,itaffordssuchenterprisesfortheprotectionincarryingouttheir

trade.Thecountriesexchequerisdeniedsignificantrevenueandbringsfi

nancialinsurgencybesides,resultingit terroristactivities.Gamblingplat

formsprovideauniqueconduitforlaunderingtheproceedsofcrimesuch

thattheyemergeaslegitimatebusinessrevenue.Inthepresentcaseit

hadbeenobliquelyreferredthat themoneywhichwasbeinggenerated

throughthisbettingandmatchfixingwasbeingtransactedthroughHawala

transactions. To corroborate this the prosecution had relied on various

SMSmessagesexchangebetweenAshwani Aggarwal andother asso

ciates.SendingofSMSswithouttherebeinganycorroborativeevidencein

thenatureofbankaccounts,moneytransactionsorothermanifestationsof

thismoneyinmaterialform,cannotbeconsideredassufficientevidenceto

makeout evenaprimafaciecaseof Hawalabeingdoneof the illegal

moneyallegedlygenerated in thisbusiness. It is significant tonotethat

SanjayAggarwal@chotuwasallegedtobefaceforinvestmentforthisil


legalmoney,butinvestigationshavenotrevealedamassingofanyprop

ertyormoneyinthebankaccountswhichwasnotaccounted.Likewas

propertydetailsofAshwaniAggarwaldonotreflectanydisproportionatein

vestmentorwealth.

101 The prosecution has claimed that money was being transacted

throughHawala,butthisisnotingconjectures,surmisesandpresumptions

whichhasdrawnfromthefactoftherebeingallegedbettingandmatchfix

ingduringthecricketmatches.ThereistheallegationsofHawalatransac

tionsarenotsupportedbyanyevidence.

102 Insofarasmoneylaunderingisconcerneditisthecaseofprose

cutionitselfthattheinvestigationsinthisregardinbeingcarriedoutbyen

forcement directorate. Therefore, the prosecution hasnot beenable to

evenshowaprimafaciecaseofoffenceofHawalabywayofillegalmoney

transactions beingconducted inanorganizedway interse theaccused

persons.

Abettors,ConspiratorsandFacilitators

103 LearnedspecialPP,onbehalfoftheStatehasarguedthatthepro

visionsofMCOCA,dealsnotonlywiththosewhoaredirectlyinvolvedin

thecommissionofoffence,butSection3(2)alsoincludesthosewhocon

spire,abetorknowinglyfacilitatethecommissionofanorganizedcrime.

ItwasarguedthatalltheaccusedpersonsbesidesDawoodIbrahimand

ChotaShakeelandDr.JavedChautani,weretheconspiratorsandabet

torsandwouldthus,becoveredundertheAct.

104 Inthecaseof RanjeetSingh (supra), itwasobservedthat

theexpressionabetdoesnotrefertothedefinitionofabetmentascon


tainedinSection107IPC.Itreferstosuchmeaningwhichcanbeattrib

uted toit in generalsense,withgrammaticalvariationsandcognateex

pressions.Theinclusivedefinitionofabetmentalthoughexpansiveinna

ture,includesthecommunicationorassociationwithanyperson

withtheactualknowledgeorhavingreasontobelievethatsuchper

sonisengagedinassistinginanymannertheorganizedcrimesyndi

cate.Itwasobservedthatanycommunicationorassociationwhichhasno

nexuswiththecommissionoforganizedcrime,wouldnotcomewithinthe

purviewthereof.Communicationtoorassociationwithanyperson

byitselfwouldnotcomewithinthemeaningofaforementionedprovision.It

wasfurtherexplainedthatcommunicationorassociationtoapersonmust

bywiththeactualknowledgeorhavingtobelievethatheisengagedin

assistingorganizedcrimesyndicate.Thus,theremust beadirectnexus

withtheoffencecommittedby theorganizedcrimesyndicate. Also, the

saidoffencemustbetheonecontemplatedbystatementofobjectsand

reasons.Furthermore,mensreaisanecessaryingredientforcommis

sionofacrimeunderMCOCA.

105 InSriRamvsStateofU.P.AIR1975SC175,theApexCourt

statedthattoconstituteabetment,theabettormustbeshowntohave in

tentionallyaidedthecommissionofthecrime.Mereproofthatthecrime

chargedcouldnothavebeencommittedwithouttheinvolvementoftheal

legedabettor,isnotenoughforcompliancewiththerequirementsofSec

tion107.

106 ThetermconspiracywasalsoconsideredinthecaseofRanjeet

SinghSingh(supra).Itwasnotedthattheexpression'conspiracy'is

notatermofart. Ithasdefiniteconnotation. SubbaRaoJ. inSardar

SurdulSinghCaveeshar vs. StateofMaharashtraAIR1965


SC682,observedthattheadmissibilityandevidentiaryvalueoftheevi

denceasbetweencoconspiratorsislimitedbytwocircumstancesnamely,

thattheactsmustbeinreferencetocommonintention,andinrespectof

aperiodaftersuchintentionwasentertainedbyanyoneofthem.Theex

pression,inreferencetotheircommonintentionisverycomprehen

siveanditappearstohavebeendesignedlyusedtogiveitawiderscope

thanthewordsinfurtheranceofasisinundatedintheEnglishlaw.As

aresultanythingsaid,doneorwrittenbyconspiratoraftertheconspiracy

wasformedwouldbeevidenceagainsttheother,beforeheenteredthe

fieldofconspiracyorafterheleftit.Theseobservationswerereliedupon

bytheApexCourtinthecaseofKeharSinghandAnr.v.State,AIR1988

SC1883.

107 InthecaseofT.K.Narayanv.StateofKerala,1995(1)SCC142

itwasstatedthattheingredientsofthisoffence(conspiracy)arethatthere

shouldbeanagreementbetweenthepersonswhoareallegedtoconspire

andthesaidagreementshouldbefordoingillegalactorfordoingbyil

legalmeanstheactwhichbyitselfwouldnotbeillegal.Thecircumstances

before, duringandafterthe occurrencehave tobe consideredaboutthe

complicityoftheaccused.Ifthecircumstancesarecompatiblewiththein

nocenceoftheaccusedpersons,thenitcannotbeheldthattheprosecu

tionhassuccessfullyestablisheditscase.Evenifsuchactsareprovedto

havebeencommitted,itmustbeclearthattheyweresocommitted inpur

suanceofagreementmadebetweentheaccusedwhoarepartiestothe

allegedconspiracy.Inferencefromsuchprovedcircumstancesregarding

theguiltmaybedrawnonlywhensuchcircumstancesareincapableofany

otherexplanation.


108 Havinghighlightedtheaspectswhichneedtobeconsideredbefore

anypersoncanbeheldasanabettorfacilitatororconspirator,theindivid

ualrolesofeachaccusedneedstobeexaminedtoestablishprimafacieif

theyhadtherequisitemensreabywayofintentionorknowledgetobea

participantintheallegedactivitiesoftheOrganizedCrimeSyndicate.

AshwaniAggarwal@TinkuMandi

109 Thecaseoftheprosecutionagainst AshwaniAggarwal@Tinku

MandiisthathewasarrestedfromhishousefromAdarshNagar,Delhion

16May,2013pursuanttotheinterceptionthrough4mobilenumberswith

DubaiPakistanbasedunderworld.Onthebasisofcontentofintercepted

voicecalls,itwasconfirmedthatAshwaniAggarwalwasinvolvedinspot

fixing/sessionfixingactivitiesasamemberofunderworldsyndicate. In

theraidthatwasconductedon16May,2013itwasfoundthathewasrun

ningabettingexchangeand35mobilephones,6laptopsand1ipad,Idish

TVsetupbox,3internetcards,3wifirouters,1hpprinter,TVdecoder,I

TVdecoderofanothercompany,1LCDof40inches,handwrittendiaries

andpaperswererecovered. It was found that hehadobtaineda large

numberofmobilephonenumbersbyimpersonatingidentitiesinorderto

runillegalexchangeandtoevadedetection.TheCDRsofmobilephones

usedbyaccusedshowhislinkswithvariousconduitsofunderworlddon

DawoodandChotaShakeel.Theinterceptedcallsalsoestablishhisnexus

withvariousbookies/fixersinIndiaandforeignaidsofDawoodandChota

Shakeel.Itwasfoundthathehadbeenpayingmoneythroughhenchmen

SunilBhatiatothecricketerAjitChandilaforspotfixing.Inanintercepted

call which wasbetweenTinku Mandi @Ashwani Aggarwal andJaved

Chautani,itwasfoundthatAshwaniwasencouragingJavedtouseVOIP,

internetcallingasitwasconsideredsafestmethodofcommunication.This


accusedwasalsofoundmentioningthathewas intouchwithPakistan

basedconduitofDawoodcalledSalman.Inanotherintcerceptedcallbe

tweenJavedChutaniandTinkuhewasfoundinformingDr.Javedabout

theTVprogrammeonZChannelwhich againleavestodoubtabouthis

membershipwithcrimesyndicate.Thisclearlyestablisheshisnexuswith

organizedCrimesyndicate.

110 ThetraveldatesofTinkutoDubaicoupledwithhisdisclosure

statementestablishthathehadmetDr.JavedinRadissonHoteland

otherplaces.Ithasalsobeenfoundthatbookofentrieswerehaving

nameofChandreshJain@Jupitorwhohadalsofiguredinconversa

tionbetweenhimandDr.JavedChutani.Tinkuhasalsobeenfound

tobelinkedwithSanjayAggarwal@ChottaNagpur,aMegabookie

ofNagpurwhoissuspectedtobethefrontmanforinvestmentofille

gal wealth being generated by this syndicate. Furthermore, coac

cusedRameshVyaswhoisalsoamemberofcrimesyndicateinhis

confessionalstatementunderSection18ofMCOCA,haddisclosed

thatAshwaniAggarwalwas theimportantmemberofcrimesyndi

cate.

111 LearnedcounselonbehalfofAshwaniAggarwalhasargued

thatmererecoveryof35mobilesandotherparaphernaliafromtheof

ficeofaccused,doesnotperseestablishcommissionofanyoffence

bytheaccused.Theengaginginbettinginagameofcricketwhichis

agameofskill,isanywaynotanoffenceunderSection12ofPublic

Gambling Act. The conversation between this accusedwith Javed

Chutanidonotmakehimamemberoforganizedcrimesyndicate.

Furthermore,forinvokingMCOCA,itisessentialthatthereshouldbe

2FIRsinthepreceding10yearswhichisnotthereinthecaseof


AshwaniAggarwal.NooffenceofMCOCAoranyotheractis,there

fore,madeoutagainsthim.

112 Theevidencce asproducedagainst this accused Ashwani

Aggarwalevenifacceptedonitsfacevaluewithoutanyproofshows

thathewasrunningabettinghousefromthepremisesinGurgaon.In

thisbusiness,hewasalsoclaimedtobeconnectedwithChandresh

Jain @ Jupiter, who is also claimed to be involved in the same

business.However,thereisnodirectconversationbetweenAshwani

AggarwalandChandreshJain,whosenamehasonlyfiguredinthe

conversationbetweenAshwaniandDr.JavedChautani.Thereisno

evidencewhatsoevertoshowthatAshwaniAggarwalwas linkwith

Chandresh Jain or they were together working as members of a

Sydicatedealinginbetting.

113 Theprosecutionhassought toestablishthe linkofAshwani

Aggarwal to the allegedCore CrimeSyndicate of DawoodChhota

ShakeelonthebasisofvariouscallinterceptsbetweenhimandDr.

JavedChautani.Thoughthereisnoevidencetoshowthatthemobile

numberattributedtoDr.JavedChautaniwasinfactinhisnamebut

evenifitisacceptedthatAshwaniAggarwalhadbeentalkingtoDr.

JavedChautanithentoothecallinterceptsmerelyshowthatonone

occasionhehadadvisedDr.JavedChautanitouseVOIPasitwas


moresafeandthathewasintouchwithoneSalman,claimedconduit

of Dawood. On another occasion, he has told Javed Chautani to

watchaZeeProgramme,whichwasbeingairedinregardtomatch

fixingandinvolvementofDawood.Theseconversationsatbestcan

lead to theconclusionof their being friendshipandanassociation

betweenAshwaniAggarwalandJavedChautanibutbynostretchof

interpretationcanitbesaidthatfromthesecallinterceptsitcanbe

inferredthatAshwaniAggarwalwasworkingasamemberofCore

Crime Syndicate to which he was linked to Javed Chautani. As

alreadydiscussedabove,thereisnoevidenceplacedonrecordby

prosecutiontoshowthatDr.JavedChautaniwasinanywayworking

forDawood andwas alinkbetweenthevariousbookiesandthe

CrimeSyndicateofDawood.

114 TheaccusedAshwani is alsoshowntobe linked toSanjay

Aggarwal@ChhotaNagpuraasafaceforinvestingtheillegalwealth

that was being generated by this Syndicate. However, in depth

investigationscarriedoutbytheprosecutionhasnotbroughtforthany

evidencetoshowthattherewasanyillegalwealthofAshwani,which

wasinvestedinrealestateorotherwisebySanjayAggarwal.Alistof

propertiesandaccountsofAshwaniAggarwalhasbeenfiledbutnone

hasbeenshowntobeunaccounted.


115 Theentireevidenceoftheprosecutionsoughttobeledagainst

AshwaniAggarwal,evenifaccepteddoesnotprovidethenexuswith

theCoreCrimeSyndicate,whichistheprimaryrequirementforfram

ingachargeagainsthimforbeingamemberoftheorganizedCrime

Syndicate.NoprimafaciecaseunderMCOCAismadeoutagainst

theaccusedAshwaniAggarwal.

RamakantAggarwal

116 ThecaseofprosecutionagainstRamaKantisthathewasar

restedon16.05.2013attheinstanceofcoaccusedAshwaniAggar

wal from illegal betting exchangeat Gurgaon, Haryanaalongwith

threeaccusedAjayGoel,AmitGuptaandDipitGarg.The35mobile

phones hadbeenrecoveredfrom thesaidbettingexchange,the

analysisofwhichrevealtheywerecolocatedatRohinitill2.04.2013

andthereafter,weremovedtoGurgaonon03.04.2013.Theanaly

sisofcallsdisclosedthatexcepttwophones,allothermobileswere

eitherreceivingincomingcallsorbeingusedtomakingoutgoingcalls.

There were large number of international calls andVOIPcalls on

thesenumbers.Onephonewaspermanentlyoncallforwardingi.e.

wasactingasfeederphonetoanother. RamakantAggarwalwasa

bookieandwasfoundworkingforbettingexchangeofAshwaniAg

garwalandwasamediatoramongstvariousbookiesincludingSanjay

Aggarwal. His presence at the betting exchange during IPL 6

matchesestablisheshisdeepinvolvementinspot/sessionfixingcase.

BettingbookswereseizedwhichwerebeingmaintainedbyRamakant

Aggarwal.Hewasalsofoundtohavebeen arrestedon28.12.2012


under MumbaiGamblingActvideFIRNo.3092/12andwasfound

wantedinanotherFIRnumber3032/13.

117 Itisarguedonbehalfofaccusedthattheonlyincriminatingevi

denceagainstthisaccusedisofmaintainingbooksofbettingandre

coveryofsims,besideshis presenceatbettingexchangebeingrun

byAshwani.Thereisnoevidencetolinkhimtocrimesyndicateand

thereforenooffenceismadeoutagainsthim.

118 The allegations that has been made against accused Ra

makantAggarwalbytheprosecutionisthathewasabookieandwas

foundworkingfromthebettingexchangeofAshwaniAggarwaland

wasamediatoramongstvariousbookiesincludingSanjayAggarwal.

Tocorroboratetheseallegationstheprosecutionhadrestedonhis

presenceatthebettingexchangeduringtheIPL6matchesandalso

thebettingbookies that werebeingmaintain byhim. Thebetting

bookiesmayshowthathewasindulginginthisactivitybuta