Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Leave granted.

2. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.12.2021, as passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Writ Petition No. 667 of 2020 whereby, the High Court has rejected his challenge to the order dated 05.11.2020, as issued by the Additional Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City1 under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 2 sanctioning prosecution of the appellant with five other accused persons in Crime No. 251 of 2020 of Sadar Police Station, Nagpur City for varying offences Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2022.05.20 18:31:27 IST Reason: 1 Hereinafter also referred to as the ‘sanctioning authority’. 2 For short, ‘MCOCA’.

under the Indian Penal Code , 18603, the Arms Act, 19594 as also MCOCA.

3. The genesis of the present appeal is in the complaint filed on 08.05.2020 at Police Station Sadar, Nagpur City. Therein, the complainant alleged that on 02.05.2019, he was forcefully kidnapped from Motimahal Restaurant, Sadar, Nagpur; and was intimidated with knife and a ransom of Rs. 20 lakhs was demanded by the accused persons. The complainant alleged that three of the accused persons were known to him, being the present appellant Abhishek Singh, as also one Ankit Pali and another Roshan Sheikh. The complainant also alleged that the accused persons asked him to give them papers of his ancestral property and to hand over the shop; threatened him from time-to-time to kill; forcefully took his son in a vehicle; created terror of killing him and his son; and forcefully took out an amount of Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 11,000 from his pocket. The complainant further alleged that the accused persons visited his house from time-to-time demanding money; and that out of fear, he had left his house and was staying at other places.

3.1. On the basis of the complaint aforesaid, the said Crime No. 251 of 2020 came to be registered for offences under Sections 363 , 364A , 384 , 386 , 387 , 397 and 504 IPC.

3 For short, ‘ IPC ’.

4 Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Arms Act ’.

2 3.2. It is noticed that the appellant, apprehending arrest, applied for pre-arrest bail and on 11.05.2020, the Sessions Judge, Nagpur granted him ad interim bail.

3.3. However, on 02.06.2020, the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime), Crime Branch, Nagpur City examined the proposal submitted by the Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Nagpur City for addition of Sections 3(1)(ii) , 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOCA in the said Crime No. 251 of 2020 against six accused persons, including the appellant. The said Additional Commissioner of Police, in his approval order dated 02.06.2020, inter alia, observed that more than one charge-sheet had been filed against the accused persons involving offences for which, punishment of three years or more of imprisonment had been prescribed; and the previous record made out that the accused persons had committed offences of very serious nature under IPC and related special enactments. The Additional Commissioner of Police recorded his satisfaction while granting approval in the following terms: -

The Team leader Roshan Sheikh has committed total 9 offences, out of which, he has committed 4 offences jointly with accused No. 5 Abhishek, out of which charge sheets have been filed in the court in 3 cases and one present offence is under investigation… It is thus revealed that in total 4 cases charge sheets have been filed in the court against the Team Leader, accused No. 5 Abhishek, accused no. 4 Irfan Khan jointly. Thus in total 4 cases charge sheet have been filed jointly in respect of their crime syndicate and court has also taken the cognizance. The Chart showing charge sheets jointly filed in respect of their crime syndicate is annexed herewith as Annexure-B. *** *** *** The Accused No. 5 Abhishek has committed total 7 offences, out of which, he has committed 3 offences jointly with Team Leader i.e. crime No. 482/15 of Nandanwan P.S., Crime No. 196/16 Sitaburdi P. S., and crime No. 83/17 Sitaburdi and one offence jointly with their present crime syndicate. The accused no. 5 has committed remaining 2 offences U/s 307 of IPC of Burdi P.S. with other different members of their crime syndicate and one offence under section 4 / 25 of Arms Act of Ambazari P. S. with other different members of their crime syndicate and charge sheets have been filed in all above cases against the accused No. 5. The accused No. 5 had obtained Anticipatory Bail on registration of present FIR and after application of the MCOCA he is absconding. The Chart showing total 7 offences committed by the accused No. 5 is annexed herewith as Chart- F. *** *** *** It is further revealed that the Preventive action also has been taken against Team Leader and accused No. 5 Abhishek, but in vain. Offences under Arms Act are also found registered against the Team leader and accused No. 5 and 6 but could not deter them from committing such offences for pecuniary benefit. It is thus appears that there is fulfillment of the essential ingredients of the section 2 (d) and (e) of MCOCA.

EVIDENCE COLLECTED IN PRESENT OFFENCE: -

accused No. 2 to 6 in the present crime No.251/2020 of Sadar P.S., are involved in “Continuing Unlawful Activity”, defined in section 2 (1) (d) and (e) of MCOCA i. e. they are indulging in use of violence, threats of violence, intimidation to gain pecuniary benefit or undue economic or other advantage for themselves or any other person, by committing cognizable offences, punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more, singly or jointly, and also undertaken as members of syndicate, in respect of which more than one charge sheets have been filed in competent Court.

*** *** ***” 3.6. In view of the above, the sanctioning authority recorded its satisfaction that all the essential ingredients of Sections 2(1)(d) and 2(1)

(e) of MCOCA were fulfilled and hence, proceeded to grant sanction in terms of Section 23(2) of MCOCA for prosecution of the six accused persons including the appellant for the aforesaid offences, inclusive of the offences under MCOCA.

3.7. After the sanction aforesaid, the police filed the charge-sheet on 07.11.2020 in the said Crime No. 251 of 2020. This led the appellant to file Writ Petition No. 667 of 2020 in the High Court, questioning the sanction order dated 05.11.2020.

4. As noticed from the contents of the impugned sanction order dated 05.11.2020, the previous involvement of the appellant in other criminal cases with at least three of them jointly with the alleged team 6 leader, had been the part of consideration in the sanctioning authority ultimately issuing sanction for prosecution in relation to the offences under MCOCA alongwith the other offences in Crime No. 251 of 2020. The involvement of the appellant in other cases had gone into consideration of the High Court too. As shall be noticed hereafter, the nature of other cases and the results of a couple of them forms a part of the submissions in support of this appeal. It would, therefore, be appropriate to take note of the cases in which the appellant is, or had been, involved. The particulars and status of these cases with the nature of offences and the names of accused persons are as follows: -

Status: Charge-sheet has been filed and the case is said to be pending.

Accused persons: 1. Sameer Sharma, 2. Abhishek Singh 3. Shrikant Wanwe 4. Shubham Jaiswal 5. Rakesh Samrutwar

6. Vishnu Tripathi 7. Rajlannan Pande 8.

Ramashankar Mishra 9. Mohd. Wasim Offences: Sections 143 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 307 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act .

Status: Charge-sheet has been filed and the case is said to be pending.

Accused persons: 1. Roshan Sheikh, 2. Sunil Kuril, 3. Kamlesh Yadav, 4. Divyam Samit, 5. Rudram Samrit, 6.

Abhishek Singh Offences: Sections 143 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 323 , 294 and 506 IPC.

Status: Charge-sheet has been filed and the case is said to be pending.

Accused persons: 1. Roshan Sheikh, 2. Sohil Khan, 3. Salim Kazi, 4.

Irfan Khan, 5. Abhishek Singh, 6. Ankit Pali Offences: Sections 363 , 364A , 384 , 386 , 387 , 397 , 504 , 506 IPC, 4/25 Arms Act , and 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) MCOCA.

Status: It is the present case where charge-sheet has been filed.

5. Having taken note of the relevant background aspects, we may now refer to the submissions made before, and considerations of, the High Court.

5.1. In challenge to the sanction order dated 05.11.2020, it was urged on behalf of the appellant before the High Court that the sanctioning authority had not recorded specific satisfaction about the existence of ‘organised crime syndicate’ in terms of Section 2(1)(f) of MCOCA; and mere satisfaction about the alleged existence of the ingredients of Section 9 2(1)(d) , which defines ‘continuing unlawful activity’ and Section 2(1)(e) , which defines ‘organised crime’, was not sufficient for according sanction. In other words, the contention had been that there was no question of granting sanction in terms of Section 23(2) of MCOCA, for the vital predicate, being the existence of ‘organised crime syndicate’, as defined by Section 2(1)(f) of MCOCA, having not been fulfilled. 5.2. The High Court took note of the background aspects, including the facts pertaining to the appellant and his involvement in various other cases, some of them in league with the team leader Roshan Sheikh and other persons. The High Court also examined the contents of sanction order dated 05.11.2020 and, after finding no legal flaw or shortcoming therein, proceeded to dismiss the writ petition while, of course, making it clear that any observations occurring in the order would not influence or prejudice the trial or pre-empt any legitimate defence of the appellant. The High Court, inter alia, observed, held and concluded as follows: -

There shall be no order as to costs.”

6. Assailing the judgment and order of the High Court as also the sanction order dated 05.11.2020, the learned senior counsel for the appellant has taken us through the scheme of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 , as also the record of the case and has put forth a variety of submissions for consideration, which could be summarised as follows:

forfeiture and attachment of property ( Section 20 ) and modified application of CrPC with several protections being overridden. The learned counsel would submit that looking to the drastic and serious consequences, this Court has clearly provided that the provisions of MCOCA have to be strictly construed by the Courts; and the authorities concerned must strictly adhere to the same. The learned counsel has referred to the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal & Anr. : (2007) 4 SCC 171, particularly paragraph 62 thereof.

6.2. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that by virtue of Section 2(1)(d) read with Sections 2(1)(e) and 2(1)(f) of MCOCA, to invoke its provisions, a minimum of two charge-sheets are required to have been filed with twin allegations, i.e., of a) violence and b) the object being of gaining pecuniary benefit or other similar benefit. The learned counsel would submit that in view of these twin requirements, the prosecution cannot rely upon the cases where the allegations only relate to violence but not to the object of gaining pecuniary or other benefit. The learned counsel has particularly referred paragraph 24 of the decision of this Court in the case of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. : (2005) 5 SCC 294.

6 Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Evidence Act ’. 12 6.3. With reference to the facts of the present case, learned senior counsel for the appellant has strongly contended that even as per the stand of the respondents, the allegations concerning pecuniary benefit occur only in the present case of Crime No. 251 of 2020 and not in other cases. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the threshold requirement of involvement of the appellant in two or more cases involving the object of gaining pecuniary or similar benefit being not existing, even if those cases are taken on their face value, the provisions of MCOCA are inapplicable to the present case.

6.4. With reference to the contents of the sanction order and the stand of the respondents, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the cases forming the basis of the sanction order did not relate to any pecuniary benefit nor any such consideration had occurred in the order impugned but, in the concluding part, the sanctioning authority had mechanically used the expressions ‘to gain pecuniary benefit or undue economic or other advantage’. According to the learned counsel, the use of alternative, i.e., “or” has no basis whatsoever and thus, the order impugned remains baseless where the propositions of the sanctioning authority do not meet with the threshold requirements of Section 2(1)(f) of MCOCA. The learned counsel has referred to the decision in the case of Jagannath Misra v. State of Orissa : (1966) 3 SCR 134 and has submitted that mere use of the expressions of the statute without proper application to the facts is not countenanced, particularly in the matters 13 where the question of liberty of a person is involved. Thus, according to the learned counsel, there being no such element of ‘other advantage’ and these words having been used in an arbitrary and formal manner, the prosecution is not entitled to rely upon the same. It has also been contended that, in fact, the plea of ‘other advantage’, as taken before this Court, is rather an afterthought and is of an attempt at improvement over the reasons recorded in the sanction order, which is entirely impermissible in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Mohindhr Singh Gill & Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. : (1978) 1 SCC 405.

6.5. In other limb of submissions, the learned senior counsel has particularly referred to the cases pertaining to Crime Nos. 13 of 2012 and 482 of 2015 and has submitted that these cases could not have been considered at all for the reason that in the case relating to Crime No. 13 of 2012, the appellant was, in fact, acquitted by the Trial Court whereas in the case relating to Crime No. 482 of 2015, the proceedings were quashed by the High Court. It has been submitted that the order impugned ought to have given specific reasons for placing reliance on such cases despite acquittal and quashing. Therefore, again, learned counsel would submit that the order issuing sanction deserves to be set aside.

6.6. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the sanctioning authority has placed reliance on the confessions recorded under Section 14 18 of MCOCA and this could not have been done as self-serving exercise. In any case, according to the learned counsel, without meeting the threshold requirement of two charge-sheeted cases with the allegations applicable to MCOCA, no number of confessions in one case could be taken as sufficient. The learned counsel has submitted that any order having drastic consequences like those of application of MCOCA, if proceeding on the basis of irrelevant material, while ignoring the relevant considerations, cannot be approved and has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana & Ors. : (2020) 13 SCC 632. The learned counsel would submit that when the irrelevant material is excluded in the present case, the sanction order falls to the ground and deserves to be set aside.

6.7. As regards the allegations of the respondents that the appellant was an absconder, it has been submitted that the appellant had no intention to abscond or not to face the judicial process and he has always been available in Nagpur; and had travelled to Delhi to swear the affidavit before this Court. It has been contended that the appellant, like in other cases in the past, would fully cooperate with the investigation and with the Trial Court but the arbitrary, illegal and mala fide invocation of the drastic provisions of MCOCA, severely impinging the fundamental rights of the appellant, could not stand validated by the alleged absconsion of the appellant; and the State was only trying to create false prejudice and to justify its arbitrary and illegal sanctioning order. 15

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has countered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and, after a detailed reference to the fact-sheet has, inter alia, contended as follows:

This, according to the learned counsel, is sufficient to show that MCOCA has rightly been invoked in the present case.

7.3. The learned counsel for the State has further contended that the arguments about the appellant not being involved in the crime referable for invocation of MCOCA are not correct and the suggested interpretation on behalf of the appellant of the expression ‘other advantage’ is also not correct. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has referred to the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Jagan Gagansingh Nepali @ Jagya & Anr. : (2011) SCC OnLine Bombay 1049 to submit that therein, the Bombay High Court has held that crimes of bodily offence could be the crimes committed with an intention to establish supremacy and which could lead to gains other than pecuniary benefit or advantage. 7.4. The learned counsel has also referred to the decision of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari & Ors. : 2013 (12) SCC 17 to submit that the confessional statement could definitely be considered when granting sanction under Section 23(2) of MCOCA. Learned counsel would submit that the 17 confessional statements of the gang leader and other co-accused person directly disclose the role of the appellant as an active member of the ‘organised crime syndicate’. Thus, in the present case, the confessional statements are limited to the confessor and to the co-accused; and their use in the sanction order cannot be faulted at. Learned counsel has also submitted that there is no prohibition in MCOCA in using the confessional statements while according sanction and, in any case, they could be pressed into service by the sanctioning authority when forming a prime facie view of the matter and examining the question of according sanction. The learned counsel has also added that the question of reliability of confessional statement cannot be adjudged at the stage of granting sanction and could only be decided during trial when the witnesses are examined.

7.5. The learned counsel has submitted that when the material placed before the sanctioning authority reveals presence of credible information regarding commission of an offence or organised crime, the same could always be relied upon; and has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Kavitha Lankesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors. : (2021) SCC OnLine 956.

7.6. In yet another limb of submissions, learned counsel for the State would argue that the validity of the sanction could always be determined by the Trial Court during the course of trial where the sanctioning authority could be examined with an opportunity of cross-examination to 18 the accused. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Vinod G. Asrani v. State of Maharashtra : (2007) 3 SCC 633 and has contended that for this opportunity being available to the appellant during trial, no interference in the sanctioning order is called for.

8. We have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and have examined the material placed on record with reference to the law applicable.

9. While dealing with the rival submissions, pertinent it is to take note of the Statement of Objects and Reasons as also the Preamble of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and the relevant provisions under reference.

9.1. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for this enactment reads as under: -

It is the purpose of this Act to achieve there objects.” 9.2. Relevant part of the Preamble of MCOCA, that substituted its predecessor Ordinance, reads as under: -

10. As noticed, learned counsel for the State has emphatically argued in the very first place that the appellant has been declared as an ‘absconder’ in terms of Section 82 CrPC and Section 20(3) MCOCA and hence, his case deserves no consideration. The appellant’s answer to this plea of the respondent has been that he had no intention to abscond or not to face the judicial process; and that the illegal and mala fide invocation of MCOCA, impinging upon his fundamental rights, could not stand validated by the alleged absconsion. Though we cannot ignore the submissions on behalf of the State altogether in this regard; and it remains seriously questionable if the appellant deserves indulgence under Article 136 of the Constitution of India but, in totality of the circumstances, where notices had been issued to the respondents, we have considered it proper to first examine the matter on merits; and to advert to this aspect of absconsion in the last.

11. A comprehensive look at the objects and reasons for enactment of MCOCA, its overall purpose signified in its Preamble, and the relevant definitions in Section 2 as also the punishments provided in Section 3 , 22 leave nothing to doubt that this enactment is for making special provisions for dealing with the menace of organised crime causing serious threat to the society. No doubt, the enactment makes stringent provisions with several extraordinary measures but, the peculiar nature of the mischief sought to be tackled, i.e., of organised crime, has obviously led to such extraordinary measures, particularly when the existing legal framework was found to be rather inadequate to control the menace.

12. A long deal of arguments has been advanced before us on behalf of the appellant that looking to the drastic and serious consequences, the provisions have to be strictly construed and the authorities are bound to strictly adhere to the same. The question is as to what are the connotations of ‘strict construction’ by the Courts and ‘strict adherence’ by the authorities in the context of an enactment like MCOCA? For determination of this question, apposite it shall be to refer to the cited decisions and the applicable legal principles.

12.1. The case of Lalit Somdatta Nagpal (supra) was one involving questions relating to the application of MCOCA in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Having particular regard to the enactment of Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 , which was to remain in force for 15 years only and therein, the power to impose punishment was limited upto 2 years, this Court held that even when power of the Court to impose punishment was limited to 2 years, the 23 offence continued to remain punishable upto a maximum period of 7 years, so as to attract the provisions of MCOCA. Having said that and having disapproved the views of the High Court, this Court, of course, agreed with the other submissions on behalf of the respondents as regards strict interpretation of the provisions and strict observance by the authorities while observing as under: -

“STORY, J. in agreeing to the rule in its "true and sober sense"

12.5. The meaning and import of the expression “strict construction” have also been explained in Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar8, as follows: -

presumption; and all doubts concerning its application would, ordinarily, be resolved in favour of the accused. However, 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. At this juncture, we may profitably refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Balram Kumawat v. Union of India & Ors. : (2003) 7 SCC 628, that the purpose of law is not to allow the offender to sneak out of the meshes of law. This Court said, inter alia, as under: -

13. Having taken note of the relevant principles, we may proceed with their application to the present case.

14. The main plank of the case argued on behalf of the appellant has been that the threshold requirement of his involvement in two or more cases, involving the object of gaining pecuniary or similar benefits is not existing and, therefore, even if the referred cases are taken on their face value, the provisions of MCOCA are not applicable. While examining this line of arguments, we are constrained to observe that the submissions on behalf of the appellant are rather premised on an incorrectly framed question which has, obviously, led to incorrectly framed contentions. The wrong premise of the contentions of the appellant could be noticed from the very opening paragraph in the written submissions which reads as under: -

The requirement of law is not limited to pecuniary benefits but it could also be of ‘gaining undue economic or other advantage’. The frame of the proposition that the object ought to be gaining pecuniary benefit or other ‘similar’ benefit is not correct as it misses out the specific phraseology of 31 the enactment which refers to undue economic or other advantage apart from pecuniary benefit.

14.3. This aspect has gone into consideration of the Full Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Jagan Gagansingh Nepali @ Jagya (supra), wherein the Court examined precisely the connotations of the expression “other advantage” occurring in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The question formulated had been as under: -

section (4) of section 3 will be rendered redundant. We are also of the considered view that there could be various “unlawful continuing activities” by a member of “organised crime syndicate” or by any person on behalf of such a syndicate which can be for the advantages other than economic or pecuniary...” 33 14.4. We have no hesitation in endorsing the views of Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Jagan Gagansingh Nepali @ Jagya (supra). Looking to the object and purpose of this enactment, the expression ‘other advantage’ cannot be read in a restrictive manner and is required to be given its full effect. The High Court has rightly said that there could be advantage to a person committing a crime which may not be directly leading to pecuniary advantage or benefit but could be of getting a strong hold or supremacy in the society or even in the syndicate itself. As noticed above, the purpose of this enactment is to be kept in view while interpreting any expression therein and in the name of strict construction, its spirit and object cannot be whittled down.

15. A chart has been placed before us on behalf of the appellant in relation to the aforesaid seven cases with certain comments. As regards the case at Serial No. 1, it is submitted that no pecuniary benefit or undue economic gain was alleged in the matter where it was alleged that during house search, the police found a sword from the house of Keval Patel and the appellant was staying there as a tenant. As regards the case at Serial No. 2, it is submitted that the allegation against the appellant had been of giving blow with knife to the complainant due to previous enmity and quarrel on account of friendship with a girl. Again, it is submitted that none of the members of the alleged crime syndicate are accused persons and no pecuniary benefit or other advantage is alleged. The said case resulted in acquittal with one witness turning hostile and other witnesses 34 not turning up. As regards the case at Serial No. 3, it is contended that this was the first joint offence with the accused Roshan Sheikh and in fact, it had been the matter of cross FIRs; and the same were quashed by the High Court on 13.04.2016. It is submitted that it had been a matter of clash between two groups of people and no elements of pecuniary benefit or undue economic gain or other advantage was alleged. As regards the case at Serial No. 4, it is submitted that the incident took place in a bar because of some argument between the waiter and the customer and no such element of pecuniary benefit or undue economic gain or other advantage is shown. As regards the case at Serial No. 5, it is submitted that this has also been a matter of counter FIRs where first FIR was lodged by Sameer Sharma and the appellant is an eye-witness therein; and no pecuniary benefit or undue economic gain or other advantage to the accused is shown in this crime. As regards the case at serial No. 6, it is submitted that the charge-sheet does not disclose any act committed by any syndicate, or any crime for pecuniary gain; that during investigation, offences under Section 3 / 25 of Arms Act was deleted; and taking this case also into account was not correct. 15.1. The common thread of “violence” or “threat of violence” or “unlawful means” running through all of these cases is not a matter requiring any analysis, for the same being apparent on the face of record. Significantly, the aforesaid had not been the cases involving the appellant singularly; and more significantly, the alleged team leader Roshan Sheikh 35 is the co-accused in at least three previous cases. This is apart from the recurrence of other co-accused persons in one case or the other. It has rightly been pointed out on behalf of the respondent-State that in order to attract MCOCA, every previous case need not be of the object of gaining pecuniary benefit alone. The cases in question, apart from involving the offences against human body and property, also include variety of other offences including those of rioting while armed with deadly weapons; causing insult to provoke breach of peace; and criminal intimidation. They also include the offence under the Arms Act . In all the referred cases, use of violence has specifically been alleged.

15.2. The crime chart aforesaid, the nature of activities and the persons involved leave nothing to doubt that the involvement of the appellant in such crimes and unlawful activities which are aimed at gaining pecuniary advantages or of gaining supremacy and thereby, leading to other unwarranted advantages is clearly made out.

16. The criticism of the impugned sanction order dated 05.11.2020, that it had been of mere repetition of the expression of statute, is also difficult to be accepted. The High Court, in the impugned order, has rightly observed that the said order is required to be viewed in its totality, and its substance cannot be ignored by isolated reference to a particular line or expression. We have reproduced the relevant contents of the order dated 05.11.2020 particularly those concerning the present appellant; and we have not an iota of doubt that firstly, the approving authority, and then, the 36 sanctioning authority, were conscious of the requirement of law and indeed examined the matter only with reference to such requirement; and issued the orders in question only after arriving at the requisite satisfaction. It has rightly been pointed out on behalf of the respondent that in such matters, the competent authority has to focus essentially on the factum whether the material in question reveals the commission of crime, which is an organised crime, committed by the organised crime syndicate.

16.1. In view of above, reference to the decision of this Court in Jagannath Misra (supra), which essentially related to a matter of preventive detention, hardly makes out any case for interference. The question of arriving at satisfaction has been dealt with by this Court in the following: -

17.1. The threshold requirement in terms of clause (d) of MCOCA is that of the activity/activities undertaken by the accused persons either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate, which involves a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more and in respect of which, more than one charge-sheets have been filed before the competent Court within 10 years and cognizance had been taken. 17.2. Crime No. 13 of 2012 was registered on 11.01.2012 and involved two accused persons including the appellant and related to the offence under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Thus, the prescribed period and nature of offence with reference to prescribed punishment were met. Cognizance had also been taken in the said case and that is how it went to trial. The prosecution therein could examine only one person as the alleged eye-witness but, he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution failed to examine the other witnesses including the complainant and the injured and even the non-bailable warrant issued in their relation were returned unserved with the report that they were not traceable. Thus, the prosecution failed to substantiate the charges. We shall comment on the said nature of acquittal a little later but, relevant it is to observe for the present purpose that the said case answers to all the requirements of clause (d) of Section 2(1) of MCOCA.

39 17.3. As regards the other case, being Crime No. 482 of 2015 dated 20.12.2015, the offences had been of Sections 143 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 294 , 324 , 325 IPC. The co-accused person of the previously referred Crime No. 13 of 2012 was the co-accused person in this case too, apart from the other co-accused persons, including Roshan Sheikh, said to be the team leader. The said case also answers to all the requirements of clause

(d) of Section 2(1) of MCOCA. In the said case, there had been a cross FIR in Crime No. 481 of 2015 and it appears that there was a settlement for which, the High Court, by its order dated 13.04.2016, considered it appropriate to quash the proceedings. We would refer to the implications of such quashing of proceedings also a little later. Suffice it to notice for the present purpose that the said case too answers to all the requirements of clause (d) of Section 2(1) of MCOCA. 17.4. There is no dispute to the fact that at least two more cases, being of Crime No. 196 of 2016 and of Crime No. 83 of 2017, both of Sitabuldi Police Station, are also pending wherein charge-sheets have been filed and they include varying offences, including those of Sections 148 and 326 IPC, clearly meeting with all the essential requirements. In both these cases, the appellant is an accused person alongwith a few common co- accused persons, including the alleged team leader Roshan Sheikh. It is not the case of the appellant that cognizance had not been taken in those cases.

40 17.5. The submissions about taking irrelevant factors into account with reference to the said two cases resulting in acquittal and discharge must fail for the simple reason that for the purpose of clause (d) of Section 2(1) of MCOCA, the result of a particular matter is not decisive of the question as to whether the activity in question answers to the description of ‘continuing unlawful activity’ or not. These had not been offences committed single-handed by the appellant and charge-sheets were indeed filed therein. The matter of settlement because of cross-cases or a matter of acquittal because of the witnesses not turning up, could hardly be of any relevance so far as clause (d) of Section 2(1) of MCOCA is concerned. Therefore, it cannot be said that any irrelevant matter has been taken into consideration by the sanctioning authority. The case of Khaja Bilal Ahmed (supra) as relied upon on behalf of the appellant, even otherwise, has no direct application for being related to a preventive detention matter. In any case, there is no quarrel with the proposition therein that for a detaining authority, it is incumbent that its satisfaction must not be based on irrelevant or invalid grounds but, we are clearly of the view that in the present case, the authority cannot be said to have proceeded on any irrelevant consideration. What is significant and pertinent for the purpose of Section 2(1)(d) is the involvement of the person concerned in the referred activity and filing of charge-sheet and taking of cognizance in the offence as predicated. Acquittal or discharge is of no significance.

18. As regards the use of confessional statement by the sanctioning authority, we are unable to find any fault therein. In the first place, noticeable it is that the confessional statements of the co-accused persons, including the alleged team leader, have not been used by the sanctioning authority as the only basis of the sanction order. Those have been referred as the part of evidence collected in the present offence, which included various other pieces of evidence, i.e., mobile phones, vehicles, pen drive, weapons etc. In any case, the value attached to the confessional statement, while overriding the provisions of CrPC and the Evidence Act in terms of Section 18 of MCOCA, cannot be gainsaid and cannot be ignored. This Court has, in the case of Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari (supra), observed and held, inter alia, as under: -

Since Section 18 of MCOCA is an exception to the rule laid down in Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, the same will have to be interpreted strictly, and for the limited purpose contemplated thereunder. The admissibility of a confessional statement would clearly be taken as overriding Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act for purposes of admissibility, but must mandatorily be limited to the accused confessor himself, and to a co-accused (abettor or conspirator).” 42 18.1. The reference in the confessional statements of the two co- accused persons in relation to the appellant is not a factor entirely irrelevant for the appellant being a co-accused person with them. The detailed discussion by the sanctioning authority to the substantial pieces of evidence collected in the matter rather fortifies the conclusion that the sanctioning authority has meticulously applied its mind to all the relevant factors and has taken an overall view of the matter before forming the final opinion in favour of granting the sanction. The contention in that regard also fails.

18.2. The learned counsel for the State has fairly and rightly indicated, with reference to the decision of this Court in the case of Vinod G. Asrani (supra), that the validity of sanction could always be determined by the Trial Court during the course of trial where sanctioning authority could be examined and the appellant will have sufficient opportunity to contest the same, including that of cross-examining the sanctioning authority. In fact, the High Court has also taken care in its impugned order to make it clear that the observations were only prima facie and nothing in the order would influence or prejudice the trial or pre-empt any legitimate defence of the appellant. In Vinod G. Asrani (supra), this Court has observed and held as under: -

However, as observed hereinbefore, we have considered it proper to first examine the matter on merits because notices had been issued to the respondents and it had appeared serving the cause of justice to deal with the matter on merits. As noticed, all the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant remain baseless and challenge herein ought to fail. Thus, we need not say any more in the present case as regards the effect of absconsion.

23. Accordingly, and in view of the above, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.

……....……………………. J.

(DINESH MAHESHWARI) ……....……………………. J.

(ANIRUDDHA BOSE) NEW DELHI;

MAY 20, 2022.