In a recent ruling of Goeffrey Peter D'souza & Another v/s The State of Maharashtra, At the instance of Sr. Inspector of Police, Mumbai & Others., by the Bombay High Court, two writ petitions challenging the prior approval granted by the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (M.C.O.C. Act) were dismissed. The petitions, WP/957/2015 and WP/956/2015, were filed by the petitioners, who contended that the approval issued on 27th February 2015 was granted without due application of mind and was invalid. The Court, however, upheld the validity of the prior approval and dismissed the petitions, reinforcing the importance of following legal procedures in the application of the M.C.O.C. Act.
Background of the Case:
The petitioners, Goeffrey D’souza and Nilesh Paradkar, were allegedly involved in threatening an individual named Sanjay D. Patil, a former Member of Parliament, over a dispute related to Mathadi work in the Kanjurmarg area. The alleged threat, which included claims of physical harm, was communicated through a series of phone calls. Based on this complaint, an FIR was lodged under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relating to criminal intimidation (Section 506), criminal intimidation through anonymous communication (Section 507), and other relevant provisions.
The investigating authorities, upon identifying the serious nature of the offence and the involvement of organized crime syndicates, decided to apply the provisions of the M.C.O.C. Act. The Senior Inspector of Police, DCB CID, sought prior approval from the Competent Authority to invoke the provisions of the M.C.O.C. Act, citing the petitioners’ association with the Chhota Rajan gang and their criminal history. On the basis of this request, the Competent Authority granted the prior approval on 27th February 2015, which was subsequently challenged in court by the petitioners.
Petitioners' Arguments:
The petitioners contended that the prior approval granted by the Competent Authority was merely mechanical and lacked proper consideration of the facts and legal requirements. They argued that the alleged threat, as per the FIR, did not meet the threshold for criminal intimidation under Section 506 (Part II) of the IPC, and that the involvement of the petitioners was based on political motivations. Additionally, the petitioners emphasized that previous cases against one of them, Nilesh Paradkar, had resulted in acquittals, further suggesting that the current case was baseless.
Moreover, the petitioners argued that the Competent Authority had exceeded its jurisdiction, particularly since the offences alleged were non-cognizable and did not fall within the ambit of organized crime. They sought the quashing of the prior approval and its consequential effects, including the application of M.C.O.C. provisions.
State's Argument:
In response, the state’s representative, learned A.P.P. Mr. S.V. Gavand, defended the decision of the Competent Authority. He argued that the prior approval was granted after thorough consideration of all relevant factors, including the petitioners’ criminal history and their connections with the notorious Chhota Rajan gang. According to the prosecution, the alleged offence was committed on behalf of an organized crime syndicate, and therefore the invocation of M.C.O.C. Act was justified. The state maintained that the petitioners were involved in the extortion and intimidation activities linked to the organized crime network, and the prior approval was a necessary procedural step.
Court's Analysis:
The Bombay High Court carefully examined the arguments put forth by both the petitioners and the state. The Court referred to the decision in Anil Sadashiv Nanduskar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007), which provided clarity on the requirements for prior approval under the M.C.O.C. Act. The Court observed that while the approval or sanction should ideally reflect the Competent Authority’s application of mind, it is not mandatory to explicitly reference every detail in the approval order itself. The crux of the matter lies in whether all necessary materials were placed before the authority to enable a reasoned decision.
The Court emphasized that the question of the validity of the prior approval can only be conclusively decided after evidence is led in the trial. However, in this case, the Court found no inherent flaws in the prior approval process. The Court also observed that the threat made by the petitioners, which was aimed at securing control over Mathadi work in the area, fell squarely within the definition of criminal intimidation under Section 506 (Part II) of the IPC.
Conclusion:
After reviewing the evidence and legal precedents, the Bombay High Court concluded that the Competent Authority had not erred in granting the prior approval under Section 23(1)(a) of the M.C.O.C. Act. The Court found no legal infirmity in the decision, and dismissed the petitions. The judgment reinforced that challenges to prior approvals must be resolved in the trial phase, where all evidence can be examined in detail.
Thus, the Court dismissed both writ petitions and discharged the rule, allowing the investigation under the M.C.O.C. Act to proceed. This case highlights the importance of following legal protocols in organized crime cases and affirms the significant role of the Competent Authority in determining whether the provisions of the M.C.O.C. Act should apply.
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999
