- A mis-happening took place on 05.09.2017 where a leading journalist shot dead by certain unknown assailants near her house. The appellant was urged to the spot after seeing her sister in a precarious state and immediately complained about the incident which took place.
- The FIR was lodged under sec 302 of the Indian penal code and sec 25(8) of the arms act against Mohan Nayak. N
- The investigation was taken place by the special investigating team, on the course of an investigation the preliminary charge-sheet was filed against the accused further team sought permission for an additional charge-sheet.
- Evidence collected by SIT and entire investigation paper to excise the power under sec 24(1)(a) of 2000 act, accorded with prior approval of invoking sec 3 of 2000 act.
- After completion of an investigation, the report was presented to the special court, after cognizance took place the accused was advised to file a writ petition.
Submission/Contention Of Appellant:
- Contentions of counsel on behalf of the appellant was that accused no.1 to 4,7,9 and 10 were involved in the criminal case.
- More than one case or charge sheet is filed against any of the one members who are involved in an organised crime syndicate, even if the petitioner doesn’t have any case or charge sheet against him then also he is equally participant as it attracts sec 2(d) of the act.
- Annexure-A shows the approval which was granted for investigation.
- After the charge sheet was filed and the trial court has taken cognizance offence, the petitioner hasn’t sought the quashing of the charge sheet or the order taking cognizance.
- The petitioner filed a seeking for bail but that order was rejected.
- The petitioner didn’t file any application for discharge on the same ground.
Submission/ contention of respondent:
- Contentions of counsel on behalf of the respondent, the petitioner challenged the order granted for annexure-a.
- The petitioner was not involved in continuing activities which was unlawful.
- The charge sheet allegation does not attract organized crime.
- Unlawful invocation sec 24(1)(a) of the act, which violates the personal liberty of the petitioner. thereby, the order annexure-a is violated.
Principles and observation of court:
- The court observed that no charge sheet was filed against the accused no. 3,5,7to 9,11,13to 16 and found writ petitioner acted on the instruction of the co-accused.
- The court referred to the case of Ranjit Singh Brahmajeetsing Sharma v/s state of Maharashtra to note that if a person who is indirectly involved in an organized crime syndicate will be considered as an accused.
- In reference to the case, the court stated that respondent Mohan Nayak. N doesn’t suffer any infirmity and was found connected with the brain behind the entire event and master of arm trainer, who were part and parcel members of an organized crime syndicate and organize crime as such.
- In the light of the entire circumstances, the court rejected the half writ petition and also clarified that the rejection shouldn’t damage other remedies which are permissible under law.
- Exercise of sec 24(1)(a) of 2000 act with prior approval of invoking section 3 is valid.
I agree with the decision of the court for quashing half writ petition filed by Mohan Nayak. N, As the accused was found indirectly connected to the commission of an organized crime. The above lines are justified by sec3(2) of mcoca, which states that Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates, abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organized crime or any act preparatory to organized crime, shall be punishable.
Judgement name: Kavita blanket v/s state of Karnataka & Ors.
Judgement date: October 21, 2021
Name of the writer: Sonam Awasthy
College: Prasanna Panda law college