The use of actual violence is not always an essential condition for invoking the provisions of MCOCA - SC

BENCH: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose of the SC

CASE: Abhishek vs the State of Maharashtra

MCOCA: Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act 

SECTION 2 (1) (e) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act:  “organised crime“ means continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, to gain pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantages for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency".

The divisional bench held that actual use of violence is not always an essential condition for invoking provisions of the MCOCA. The threat of violence, use of other unlawful means, or even intimidation would fall within the ambit of MCOCA.

FACTS

The bench was hearing an appeal challenging the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench decision of dismissing the appellant, Abhishek's plea challenging invocation of MCOCA against him. Abhishek, along with a few others, was booked for kidnapping a restaurant owner for a ransom of ₹20 lakh. He was subsequently booked under MCOCA due to his regular involvement in criminal activities.

The appellant argued that the authorities wrongly invoked MCOCA against him and erred in interpreting the special enactment. Moreover, in order to attract Section 2(1) (e) use of violence is essential and in his case, it was missing.

HELD

The Court stated that strict adherence to provisions of the MCOCA cannot be stretched beyond common sense and practical conditions. In order to apply MCOCA in a case, the authorities must consider the threshold as per Section 2(1) (d), (e) and (f), are fulfilled. However, the bench rejected the appellant's argument that to attract Section 2(1) (e) use of violence is essential.

Further, the bench noted that all cases/offences against Abhishek are against the human body, property, rioting, and use of deadly weapons. In view of the same, the bench dismissed the appeal and said the contentions made on behalf of the appellant remain baseless.