-:1:- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4622 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO. 4622 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO. 4622 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra. ... Applicant. V/s. Feroz R. Bengali. ... Respondent. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. M.S. Mohite, for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATE DATE DATE : 014TH AUGUST, 2008. : 014TH AUGUST, 2008. : 014TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard both the learned Counsel. 2. The Respondent was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999. 3. After conducting necessary sanction as envisage in the statutory arrangement, the chargesheet against the Respondents came to be filed before the learned Sessions Judge. On analysis of evidence, the learned Judge noticed that 14 cases which are attributed against the accused arrayed from the period 1986 to 1994 and 1996. Only one case being C.R. No.26 of 2000 is of a later period. Section 2(f) of M.C.O.C.Act specify organized crimes syndicate means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly -:2:- or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organized crime, under Section 2(d) refers of continuing unlawful activity, which means an activity prohibited by law for time being in force, it must be a cognizable offence, such an offence should be punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more either singly or jointly, as members of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of syndicate in respect of such offence, more than one charge-sheets must have been filed before the Competent Court. Such charge-sheet must have been filed within preceding period of 10 years and such Court should have taken cognizance of such offences. The Act came into force in the year 1999. Consequently, the cases upto Sr.No.11 shall be more than 10 years old. The three cases i.e. 258 of 1994, 65 of 1996 and 260 of 2000 are to be now considered. The preceding two cases were of the period earlier to the said Act which came into force and for the case No.260 of 2000, there was only single charge-sheet came to be filed after 1999 after the Act having came into force on 24.2.1999. It is thus obvious that there was one charge-sheet against the accused i.e 260 of 2000 after the act which came into force in 1999 and the other charge-sheet continued prior to period 1999. Consequently, the alleged offence of the accused did not come within the bracket of Section 2(d) referred above of M.C.O.C.Act. -:3:- 4. During the Course of submissions, the learned Counsel for the Respondent put before me a copy of Judgment in Sessions Case No.491 of 2000 in which by order dated 26.8.2003 pertaining to C.R.No.26 of 2000, the accused/Respondent came to be acquitted. The C.R.No.26 of 2000 is the same for Case No.260 of 2000 which was marked as Sessions Case No.491 of 2000. 5. In this situation of the matter, the findings of the learned Judge cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous. The prosecution against the accused will not be sustainable as rightly observed by the learned Judge. 6. Hence, leave to appeal rejected. (K.U. (K.U. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.)