Delhi court acquits 3 brothers in MCOCA case after 8-year custody, noting sanction was not valid

New Delhi [India], October 18 (ANI): Delhi's Karkardooma Court has acquitted three brothers accused of running an organised syndicate. The court ruled that the sanctions for registering the case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) were given "without due application of mind" by the competent authority.
The case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) was registered at Police Station Seelampur in August 2013 against the accused persons along with their father, Mohd Iqbal Gazi.
Special Judge (MCOCA) Pulastya Pramachala acquitted Mohd Umar alias Pau, Kamaluddin alias Kamal alias Bilal and Mohd Jamal alias Ranjha of the offences under MCOCA. One of the accused, namely Mohd Iqbal Gazi, died during trial.
"I find that accused Mohd Umar alias Pau, Kamaluddin alias Kamal alias Bilal and Mohd. Jamal alias Ranjha are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them in this case," ASJ Pramachala said in the judgement dated October 15.
After an order passed by the court, Delhi police registered on August 14, 2013, under Section 3(2) and (4) of MCOCA at Police Station Seelampur. After registration of the case, the investigation was assigned to the then ACP, Seelampur.
While acquitting the accused persons, the court held that the sanction for registering the case under MCOCA was not valid.
The court said that the foregoing discussion and findings in respect of this case, leave no doubt that sanction for registration of FIR in this case was accorded without caring to see if there was so much information given in the proposal or otherwise, so as to satisfy the requisite conditions to invoke MCOCA.
"Thus, apparently this sanction was accorded without due application of mind," the court said.
The Special MCOCA Judge also raised questions on the sanction for prosecution of the accused persons and said, "In fact, same is my finding in respect to sanctions accorded for prosecution of the accused persons, for the same reasons that sanctioning authority did not even check if all requisite conditions for invoking MCOCA were fulfilled."
"Hence, I have no second thoughts to say that all these sanctions were passed without due application of mind," the special judge held.
The court also did not accept accused's confession statement as the sanction for registration of FIR was invalid.
The judge said that I am conscious of the law that a confession made under Section 18 of the Act is admissible in evidence.
"However, when this case was registered on the basis of an invalid sanction, and when this case is found lacking fulfilling the requisite conditions to invoke MCOCA, then there cannot be any question of a confessional statement recorded in this case to be valid," the special judge Pramachala held.
"Even otherwise, confessional evidences are not very strong piece of evidence. They can be best used when there are other independent evidences to prove the facts, which are subject matter of confession," the court pointed out.
It was alleged by the Delhi police that the accused persons were running an organised crime syndicate and acquired properties out of proceeds of crime. The court said that prosecution had not satisfied the necessary legal ingredients.
"On the basis of evaluation of the facts and legal principles applied by the prosecution to allege commission of organised crime by the accused persons in this case, I find that the prosecution has not satisfied the necessary legal ingredients to invoke and prosecute the accused persons for committing organised crime," the court.
The court also dealt with the question of whether the allegations of acquiring properties out of proceeds of organised crime stand proved, as per charges under sections 3 (4) and (5) of the act. Similarly, charges for offence under sections 3 (2) and (3) of the act are also to be looked into.
The court said that all these charges required that prosecution would have proved the existence of a crime syndicate and commission of organised crime. But merely by giving list of past cases, neither existence of crime syndicate is proved nor commission of organised crime stands proved.
The court noted that the prosecution referred to certain properties, which were apparently not in the name of any accused.
The investigation officer (IO) had deposed that he could find properties in the name of accused Iqbal Gazi and Jamal.
The court said that it cannot be any property which invites attention in such cases. It has to be a property acquired out of proceeds of organised crime and this fact must be proved.
"Merely making allegations that properties were acquired out of illegal business or acts cannot be sufficient," the court said.
Advocate Akshay Bhandari, along with Anmol Sachdva, Megha Saroa, Kushal kumar and Janak, appeared for accused Mohd Jamal alias Ranjha.
It was submitted that the applicant has been in custody since June 20, 2016, and has spent approximately 8 years and 4 months in custody.
It was further submitted that to satisfy the requirements of MCOCA, prosecution has to satisfy the definition of continuing unlawful activity and organised crime as provided under Section 2(d) and (e) of the Act.
It was also submitted that the law has been settled that the offence committed to satisfy the requirements of MCOCA must be as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of the syndicate. (ANI)