Every Accused Must Not Be Present At The Spot; Can Still Be Tried As Part Of Chain Of Circumstances: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently considered whether an FIR can be quashed against a petitioner who is not referred to as an accused in the FIR and who was not present at the spot. A bench of Justices Prasanna B. Varale & S. M. Modak reiterated the difference between normal criminal law and crimes under of Maharashta Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, (MCOC) stating that , "It is not always necessary that every accused must be present on the spot. There are various circumstances in the chain of circumstances. In that chain, it may happen that set of accused persons may be present at the spot, some of the accused have played a role prior to commission of offence and some of them have participated post commission of offence." Respondent did not dispute that the present Petitioner is not being named as an accused in the FIR. However, he submitted that the investigation so far carried out discloses involvement of the Petitioner in an abetting the main assailants. He referred to the provision of Section 3 of MCOC and relied upon Govind Sakharam Ubhe Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1903, where it was held that even act of negotiating in fixing extortion amount and also accepting it and handing it over to the leader of the gang was considered as an act of abetment falling within the purview of Section 3(4) of MCOC Act. The bench regarded that, "The law on the point of invocation of MCOC is well settled This Act is enacted to prevent and control an organized crime. Organized crime is different from regular crime. If for gaining pecuniary benefits, economic/other advantage unlawful activity is continued it is an organized crime. It must be undertaken on behalf of the organized crime syndicate. It means if there is crime syndicate and they are involved in criminal activity and it has became their source of livelihood, it attracts the provisions of stringent MCOC Act. Normal criminal law is not sufficient to control the activities." The bench regarded that it is not necessary that every time same set of criminals will commit that offence. There may be new accused or combination of old and new participants. What is important is all these offences are connected through the web of organized crime syndicate. Case Title : Rajendra Bhau Patole v The State of Maharashtra and anrCitation :2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 124 Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Every Accused Must Not Be Present At The Spot; Can Still Be Tried As Part Of Chain Of Circumstances: Bombay High Court

Fatima Ansari

Tags