To invoke organised crime act provisions, actual violence is not essential: SC

The judgment came in a case where the top court declined to entertain an appeal that challenged an order of invoking MCOCA against an accused

The Supreme Court on Monday declared that to invoke the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), the actual use of violence is not an essential condition.

“Actual use of violence is not always a sine qua non for an activity falling within the mischief of organised crime, when undertaken by an individual singly or jointly as part of organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate,” a bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose said.

According to the top court, the threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, would be considered mischief. Apart from this, use of other unlawful means would also fall within the same mischief.

The judgment came in a case where the top court declined to entertain an appeal that challenged the Bombay High Court, Nagpur bench, order of invoking MCOCA against an accused.

The appellant, named Abhishek, and a few others were accused in a May 2020 kidnapping case of a restaurant owner in Nagpur. The accused had sought Rs 20 lakh as ransom.

Abhishek argued that the authorities erred in interpreting the provisions of MCOCA.

The Supreme Court Bench made it known that the appellant’s suggestion to limit the activity only to the use of violence itself was errant when it omitted to mention the wide-ranging activities contemplated by clause (e) of Section 2(1) of MCOCA. The Bench, therefore, did not accept Abhishek’s claim that to attract MCOCA’s Section 2(1) (e), which deals with organised crime, use of violence is essential.

Clause (e) of Section 2(1) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act defines organised crime as "any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency.”

According to the top court, strict adherence by the authorities concerned to the law cannot be stretched beyond common sense and practical requirements.

“The rule of strict construction cannot be applied in an impracticable manner so as to render the statute itself nugatory. In other words, the rule of strict construction of a penal statute or a special penal statute is not intended to put all the provisions in such a tight iron cast that they become practically unworkable, and thereby, the entire purpose of the law is defeated,” the bench observed.