Holding

The phrase "competent Court" in Section 2(d) of MCOCA is not limited to Delhi courts, allowing charge‑sheets from other states to be considered, but MCOCA prosecution requires an organised‑crime activity to be established within Delhi.

Summary

The State of NCT of Delhi appealed against the discharge of Brijesh Singh @ Arun Kumar and others by a Special Court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The key dispute was whether charge‑sheets filed in courts outside Delhi could be counted towards the "continuing unlawful activity" requirement of Section 2(1)(d) MCOCA, and whether MCOCA could be invoked without any organised crime occurring within Delhi. The Supreme Court held that the term "competent Court" is not confined to Delhi courts, so charge‑sheets from other states may be considered, but an organised‑crime activity must still be proven to have taken place in Delhi for MCOCA to apply. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court’s order on different grounds. The Court applied strict construction of penal statutes while giving effect to the legislative purpose of MCOCA and examined principles of extra‑territoriality and territorial nexus.

Issues considered

Whether charge‑sheets filed in competent courts outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi can be taken into account for constituting a "continuing unlawful activity" under Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA.
Whether prosecution under MCOCA is permissible when no organised‑crime activity is shown to have occurred within Delhi.
Whether the provisions of MCOCA are invalid on the ground of extra‑territoriality.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173(2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 34, s. 341, s. 506
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA)s. 1(2), s. 2(1)(d), s. 2(1)(e), s. 23(2), s. 3, s. 4, s. 5, s. 6

Subjects

MCOCAcontinuing unlawful activitycompetent courtextra‑territorialityterritorial nexusorganized crimejurisdictionpenal statute interpretation

Judgment

[2017] 11 S.C.R. 899

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) A
v.

BRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN KUMAR AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2017) B
OCTOBER 09, 2017
[S. A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.]
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (As
applicable in Delhi):
c
ss. 1(2), 2(/)(d), 2(l)(e), 3 and 4 - Prosecution under s. 3 -
Validity of - Charge-sheet filed against the respondent~accused -
Charge-sheet mentioned two FIRs (FIR No. 69 of 2007 and FIR No.
122 of 2010) which were filed in Delhi and referred to six other
cases, cognizance whereof was taken by the competent courts in
0
Uttar Pradesh - Request made to Special Court to take cognizance
of the offences u!ss. 314 of MCOCA - Special court discharged the
accused holding that it had no jurisdiction to frame charges, as
except FIR No. 69 of 2007 there was no other case which had been
taken cognizance by competent court in Delhi (FIR No. 122 of 2010
not being relevant) and the criminal cases filed in Uttar Pradesh E
could not be taken into account for satisfying the ingredients of
'continuing unlawful activity' uls. 2(l)(d) -Appeal against the order
of Special Court was dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held:
Organised crime which is an offence punishable u/s. 3 means a
continuing unlawful activity - Relevant pre-condition for considering F
an activity as continuing unlawful activity, is that there should be
two charge-sheets within JO years m:zd a competent court has taken
cognizance of such charge-sheets - Organized crime is not an activity
restricted to a particular State - 'Competent Courts' in the definition
of 'continuing unlawful activity' is not restricted to courts in Delhi
alone - Therefore charge-sheets filed in competent courts in State G
' other than Delhi not to be excluded - In case the nexus between
charge-sheets filed in competent courts outside Delhi and the those
filed in Delhi are sufficiently established, prosecution under MCOCA
cannot be held invalid on account of extra-territoriality - Therefore,
in the present case, charge-sheets filed in competent courts in Uttar
H
899
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A Pradesh should not have been excluded from consideration -
However, an activity of organised crime in Delhi is sine qua non for
registration of a crime under MCOCA - In the absence of an
organised crime being committed in Delhi, accused cannot be
prosecuted on the basis of charge-sheets filed outside Delhi - Only
B an activity which is a cognizable offence punishable with minimum
sentence of three years or more would be a continuous unlawful
activity uls. 2( 1)(d) - In the present case FIR No. 122 of 2010 cannot
be taken into account, as punishment for two of the offences therein
is less than 3 years and one of the offences is non-cognizable - In
FIR No. 69 of 2007, .there was no criminal activity pertaining to
C organised crime within the territory of Delhi - Thus, no cause of
action arises for initiation of proceedings under MCOCA.
Interpretation of Statutes:
Interpretation of penal statute - The principles of strict
construction are adopted for interpretation of penal statutes -
D However, even a penal provision should be interpreted to advance
the object which the legislature had in view - MCOCA was
promulgated with the object of arresting organised crime - The
provisions of MCOCA should be interpreted in a manner which
would advance the object of MCOCA - Maharashtra Control of
E Organised Crime Act, 1999.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The principles of strict construction have to be
adopted for interpretation of the provisions of Maharashtra
Control of Organised C::rime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) which is a penal
F statute. However, even a penal provision should be interpreted
to advance the object which the legislature had in view. [Para 13]
(913-C]
Ranjitsing Brahamajeetsing Sharma v. Maharashtra
(2005) 5 SCC 294 : (2005] 3 SCR 345 ; State of
G Maharashtra and ors. v. Lalit Somdutta Nagpal and
Am: (2007) 4 SCC 171 : (2007] 2 SCR 473 ; Murlidhar
Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 3 SCC
684 : (1977] 1 SCR 1 - relied on.
1.2 The commission of crimes like contract killings,
H extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics,
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. BRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN 901
KUMAR AND ANR.

kidnappings for ransom, collection of protection money and money A
laundering, etc, by organised crime syndicates was on the rise.
To prevent such organised crime, an immediate need was felt to
promulgate a stringent legislation. The Government realized that
organised crime syndicates have connections with terrorist gangs
and were fostering narcotic terrorism beyond the national B
boundaries. MCOCA was promulgated with the object of
arresting organised crime which was posing a serious threat to
the society. The interpretation of the provisions of MCOCA
should be made in a manner which would advance the object of
MCOCA. [Para 14] [914-A-C]
2.1 Statutes made by a Sovereign States cannot be said to C
be invalid on the ground of extra territoriality subject to certain
conditions. There is no distinction between the applicability of
the aforesaid principle to civil or criminal statutes. [Para 23] [917--
D]
2.2 In -the present case, it is sufficient to examine whether D
there is a territorial nexus between the_ charge sheets filed in
competent Courts within the State of Uttar Pradesh and the State
of NCT of Delhi where the Respondents are being prosecuted.
The prosecution of the Respondents under MCOCA cannot be
said to be invalid on the ground of extra territoriality in case the E
nexus is sufficiently established. [Para 24] [917-E-F]
2.3 Organised crime which is an offence punishable under
Section 3 of MCOCA means a continuing unlawful activity
committed by the use of force or violence for economic gain.
One relevant pre-condition which has to be satisfied before any F
activity can be considered as a continuing unlawful activity is that
there should be at least two charge sheets filed against the
members of an organised· crime syndicate within the previous 10
years and a 'competent Court' has taken cognizance of such charge
sheets. In the instant case, there are eight charge sheets filed
against the Respondents, six out of which are in the State of Uttar G
Pradesh. The Courts below are not correct in holding that only
charge sheets filed in competent Courts within Delhi have to be
taken into account. [Para 25] [917-G-H; 918-A-B]
_ 2.4 Organised crime is not an activity restricted to a
particular State which is apparent from a perusal of the Statement H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A of Objects and Reasons. A restrictive reading of the words
"competent Court" appearing in Section 2 (l)(d) of MCOCA will
stultify the object of the Act. It is not correct to say that it is
impermissible for the Special Courts to take into account charge
sheets filed outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi as
B that would result in giving extra-territorial operation to MCOCA.
A perusal of the charge-sheets filed against the Respondents in
the State ofUttar Pradesh which are relied upon by the l!rosecution
to prove that organised crime was being committed by them shows
clear nexus between those charge sheets and the NC.T of Delhi
where prosecution was launched under MCOCA. The twin
C conditions to establish territorial nexus in *RMD
Chamarbaugwala's case are fulfilled. If members of an organised.
crime syndicate indulge in continuing unlawful activity across the
country, it cannot by any stretch of imagination said, that there is
no nexus between the charge sheets filed in Courts in States
D other than Delhi and the offence under MCOCA registered in
Delhi. In such view, it cannot be said that charge-sheets filed in
competent Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh should be excluded
from consideration. 'Competent Courts' in the definition of
'continuing unlawful activity' is not restricted to Courts in Delhi
alone. [Para 26] [918-C-F]
E *State of Bombay v. RMD Chamarbaugwala [1957]
SCR 874 ; The Tata Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. v. The State
Of Bihar [1958] SCR 1355 ; State of Bihar v. Charusila
Dasi (1959) Supp. 2 SCR 619 - relied on.
Macleod v. Attorney General for New South Wales
F (1891) A.C. 455 ; Trustees Executors and Agency Co.
Ltd. v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1933) 49
C.L.R. 220 ; Union Steamship Co. of Australia PTY.
Ltd. v. King (1988) 166 CLR 1 ; Broken Hill South
Limited (Public Officer) v. The Commissioner of
G Taxation (New South Wales) 50 C.L.R. 337 ;
Christopher Strassheim v. Milton Daily 221 U.S. 280
(1911) ; Chua Han Mow v. United States 730 F.2D. 1308
(1984) ; The Governor General in Council v. The Raleigh
Investment Co. Ltd. (1944) FCR 229 - referred to.

H
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. BRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN 903
KUMAR AND ANR.

3.1 The principle that crime is local is not applicable to the A
present case. The offences alleged to have been committed by
the Respondents beyond the territories of Delhi are not being
tried within the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The existence
of filing of the charge sheets, as a matter of fact, is taken into
consideration merely for the purpose of determining the
B
antecedents of the Respondents. The Respondents would still
be liable to face trial in competent Courts where the charge sheets
are filed. [Paras 27 and 28] [919-B-C]
The State, of Bombay v. Narayandas Mangilal Dayame
AIR 1958 Born 68 (FB) - distinguished.
c
Bharat Shanti Lal Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2003)
Born. L.R. (Cri.) 947 ; State of Maharashtra v. Bharat
Shanti Lal Shah & Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 5 : [2008] 12
SCR 1083; Om Prakash Shrivastava v. State of NCT of
Delhi 164 (2009) DLT 218 ; Jaisingh v. Maharashtra
(2003)BomCR(Cri) 1606 - referred to. D

3.2 Even if a crime is committed in one State, the accused
can be tried in another State if the detrimental effect is in that
State. It cannot .be said that the crimes committed outside the
State cannot be considered for any purpose whatsoever. There
should be a minimum of two charge-sheets of organized crime E
registered against the members of the syndicate either separately
or jointly for the purpose of constituting a continuing unlawful
activity. Charge-sheets filed outside Delhi can also be taken into
account. [Paras 29 and 31] [919-D; 920-G-H; 921-A]
Christopher Strassheim v. Milton Daily; Rocha v. United F
States 288 F.2d. 545 (1961) ; Chua Han Mow v. United
States 730 F.2D. 1308 (1984) ; Director of Public
Prosecutions v. Stonehouse [1977] 2 All ER 909);
Lawson v. Fox & ors. [1974] 1 All ER 783 - referred
to. G
4.1 However, an activity of organized crime in Delhi is a
si11e qua 11011 for registration of a crime under MCOCA. In the
absence of an organized crime being committed in Delhi, the
accused cannot be prosecuted on the basis of charge-sheets filed
outside Delhi. [Para 32] [921-B-C]
H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) II S.C.R.

A 4.2 Only an unlawful activity which is a cognizable offence
punishable with minimum sentence of three years or more would
be a continuous unlawful activity under section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
FIR No.122 of 2010 was registered under Sections 341, 506 read
with Section 34 of the IPC. Section 341 IPC is punishable with a
B maximum sentence of one month, though it is cognizable offence.
Section 506 IPC was a non-cognizable offence at the date of
registration of the FIR and filing of the charge sheet. Hence, the
FIR No.122 of 2010 cannot be taken into account. [Para 33) [921-
C-E]
4.3 FIR No. 69 of 2007 was registered on the basis of
C information given by one 'S' who is admittedly a resident of
Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. He is a politician and a businessman
and when he was on a trip to Delhi, he was threatened by the
Respondents due to their business rivalry. Several facts
pertaining to the illegal activities of the Respondents in Uttar
D Pradesh have been mentioned in the FIR. 'S' complained of
extortion by the Respondents. During the course of investigation,
it was found that the call that was made on the mobile phone of
'S' was from a PCO at Varanasi. It appears from a close reading
of the FIR and the charge- sheet in FIR No.69 of 2007, that there
was no criminal activity pertaining to organised crime within the
E territory of Delhi and the complaint was filed by the informant at
Delhi only for the purpose of invoking MCOCA. There is no
mention of any property belonging to the Respondents in Delhi.
As there is no organised crime committed by the Respondents
within the territory of Delhi, there is no cause of action for initiation
F of proceedings under MCOCA. [Para 34) [921-F-H; 922-A-C]
Case Law Reference
AIR 1958 Born 68 (FB) distinguished Para9
[2005) 3 SCR 345 relied on Para 13
G [2007] 2 SCR 473 relied on Para 13
[1977) 1 SCR 1 relied on Para 13
[1957) SCR 874 relied on Para 21
[1958) SCR 1355 relied on Para 21
H
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. BRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN 905
KUMAR AND ANR.

(1959) Supp. 2 SCR 619 relied on Para 21 A
(2003) Born. L.R. (Cri.) 947 referred to Para 28
[2008] 12 SCR 1083 referred to Para 28
164 (2009) DLT 218 referred to Para 28
(2003)Bom CR(Cri) 1606 referred to Para 28 B

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.1750 of2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.04.2015 of the High Court C
· of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 358 of2014.
Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv, Anoopam N. Prasad, Ms. Mehak Jaggi,
P. K. Dey, K. L. Janjani, B. V. Balraln Das, D. S. Mabra, Advs for the
Appellant.
U. R. Lalit, Sr. Adv, Akhand Pratap Singh, Ms. Aditi Mittal,Sudhir D
Naagar, Chandra Bhushan, Sushi! Karanjkar, K. N. Rai, Advs for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted. E
1. The Respondents were discharged by the Special Judge
· MCOCA, New Delhi District, Patiala House, New Delhi in S.C. No.139
of2013 dated 5'h February, 2014 pertaining to offences under Sections 3
and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999
(hereinafter referred to as 'MCOCA'). The Appellant- State of NCT F
of Delhi filed an appeal under Section 12 of MCOCA before.the High
Court of Delhi which was dismissed on l61hApril, 2015. Aggrieved, the
Appellant-State has approached this Court by filing the above Appeal.
2. FIR No. 10of2013 was registered in the Special Cell (SB) PS
Special Cell (SB) on 5th March, 2013 on the basis of information received G
from Shri S.K. Giri, Assistant Commissioner of Police (the ACP for
short). The ACP prepared a proposal for registration and investigation
of a case under Sections 3/4 of MCOCA. According to the proposal,
the first Respondent who was arrested in connection with the FIR No.69
dated 81hOctober, 2007 under Sections 384,387, 417, 419, 471, 506 and
H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A 34 of the Indian Penal Code (the 'IPC' for short), registered in P.S.,
Special Cell, New Delhi, was also involved in 20 cases of attempt to
murder, murder, extortion, rioting, cheating, forgery and for offences
under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the UP Gangsters Act').
Respondent No. I was involved in committing unlawful activities along
B
with other members of a crime syndicate since 1985 in an organized
manner. The particulars of eight crimes, the cognizance of which was
taken by the competent criminal Courts in and outside Delhi were referred
to. It was also mentioned that Respondents manipulated a fake identity
for themselves and have floated several companies from the ill-gotten
c wealth. Several properties were acquired by these companies, the details
of which have been specified in the proposal. Considering the magnitude
of the criminal activities of the Respondents and their organised crime
syndicate, the informant felt that it, was necessary to invoke the stringent
provisions ofMCOCA. The particulars of 14members of the syndicate
D was given in the proposal and approval was sought for conducting a
thorough investigation into the role of each of them for offences under
Section 3 and 4 of MCOCA.
3. A final report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC was filed on 26'h
September, 2013. Briefly, the contents of the charge sheet are as follows:

E I. The first Respondent was involved in 39 crimes of different
nature including murder, attempt to murder, waging war
against the State, extortion, rioting, etc. between 1985 and
2008. On several occasions, he was booked under the UP
Gangsters Act but had managed to evade arrest. He was
finally arrested on 23'd January, 2008 from Bhubaneswar in
F connection with FIR No.69 of2007, PS Special Cell, Delhi.
II. FIR No.69 of 2007 was registered on a complaint made by
Sudhir Singh who alleged that at 7.15 p.m. on 28'h July, 2007,
he received a call from the Respondents who demanded
payment of Rs.SO Lakhs as protection money. The
G Respondents threatened him of dire consequences in case
the demand was not met.
III. Another FIR bearing No.122 of 2010 was registered on 17'h
May, 2010 under Sections 341,506 r/w 34 of the IPC atSubzi
Mandi Police Station, Delhi on the complaint filed by Sudhir
H
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. BRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN 907
KUMAR AND ANR. [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

Singh alleging that Narender alias Mamu and Sushi! Singh, A
MLA, who was the nephew of Respondent No. I, along with
others threatened him to withdraw the cases filed against
the Respondents. This incident, according to Sudhir Singh,
happened when he was attending proceedings in the Tis
Hazari Court Complex, Delhi.
B
IV. There is a reference in the final report of six other cases
against the Respondents, cognizance of which was taken up
by the competent Courts in Uttar Pradesh. The details of
the said six cases are as under:
Sr.' lii'i'No~ TFIRNo.:uis;&J>s Name of········-·-···· r·N-·a··;n··e of -··Gang
! No. j i Court&Date 'Member c
' of cognizance
! & Charge
i 303/09 26/91 & 98/91 ASJ Anupati Brijesh Singh
dt.02/05/1991 U/s Ram Yadav. Tribhuvan Singh
147/148/149/302/ Dis tt. Gaz ip ur Um a Kant
307 !PC PS (UP) S alander @
Bhavarcool, Distt. 09/1112012 Papu
G aziou r D
2 165/98 120/95 U/s 30) Sp!. Judge Brijcsh Singh
Gangster Act, PS Gangster Act, Hari Singh @
Ch obey Pur Varanasi Harday Narayar
VaranBsi (Original 21/11 /08 Singh
FIR & Rukka
!\1 issi ng from
i , Court.)
304/09 113/01 & 251/01/ ASJ-3 Distt. Brijesh Singh E
U/s Ghazipur Tribhuvan Singh
147/148/149/307/ 11101113
302/427/120-B
!PC. 7 Cd min al
I Law Act. PS I
: Mohamedabad
!4 '125/07 i 8/04 & 09/04 U/s i Sp!. Judge Brijesh Singh
' ! i 147/148/149/307/ I Gangster Act. Tribhuvan Singh F
\ i 1
427 !PC, 2/3 UP Lucknow f Ajay @ Guddu
, ! 'Gunda Act. PS i 14/08/07 Sunil Rai Anand
i ! i Cantt. Sadar i R ai
l1__
5
_j_J-~~L~s>-~-~-_J
i_ _ _ _
i 523/10 · / 62/09 & 81/09 U/s i ASJ - 3
--~------
Tribhuvan Singh
1 I I 147/148/149/307/ f Varanasi Sh. Brijesh Singh
!, I ! 120-B IPC 7 !- Sanga M Lal S ushil Singh
I 1 Criminal Law Act. 20/12/10
j Narcndcr @
G
, I ! PS Lanka Varanasi I Mama Ajay
i ! I I sing h @ K h ain
i
' 6
!
j9ii3 r I j 2196- & i3ii90 TciM sai<ipu r; 'sAY.~rij..es~·- h ... si ngh
\

i ,i U/s [ ; Gazipur Sh. Tribhuvan Singh
[ I 147/148/149/323/ i Parksh Chand Vijay Shankar
, i : 379/427 !PC, PS i Shukla Singh
L__J __ ---~!SaJ~~"~'~·v_~ar~a~n~a~si_LI2~5~/~0~8/~1_2_ _~-----·-·---- H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] ll S.C.R.

A 4. The involvement of the Respondents and the other members of
the crime syndicate in several criminal cases was comprehensively dealt
with in the charge sheet dated 26.09.2013, the details of which are not
relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this case. Though investigation
was still in progress regarding involvement of the other accused persons,
the charge sheet was filed against the Respondents. After obtaining the
B
requisite sanction under Section 23(2) ofMCOCA from the competent
authority, the Special Court was requested to take cognizance of the
offences under Sections 3/4 of MCOCA.
5. After hearing both sides, the Special Court held that it had no
jurisdiction to frame charges under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA and
c discharged the Respondents. The Special Court recorded a finding that
except FIR No.69 of 2010, there was no other case which has been
taken cognizance by a competent Court in Delhi for application of
MCOCA. FIR No.122 of 2010 registered at PS Sabzi Mandi was not
relevant as it was not a case where there is any allegation against the
D members of the crime syndicate acquiring any pecuniary benefits or
other advantages.
6. The Special Court held that the criminal cases of which
cognizance was taken by Courts situated outside Delhi cannot be taken
into account for the purpose of satisfying the ingredients of 'continuing
E unlawful activity' under Section 2(1)(d) ofMCOCA. Ignoring that six
cases in which cognizance was taken by competent Courts outside the
National Capital Territory of Delhi as well as FIR No.122 of 2010
registered at police station Sabzi Mandi, the Special Court held that it
had no jurisdiction to frame charges under MCOCA against the
Respondents only on the basis of one FIR i.e. No.69 of 2007. The
F Special Court further held that three out of eight cases referred to in the
charge sheet were at the instance of Sudhir Singh and that the offences
complained of are in the nature of a gang war between the rival groups
in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
7. The Appellant-State preferred an appeal against the judgment
G of the Special Court discharging the Respondents before the High Court
of Delhi. The High Court rejected the submissions made on behalf of
the Appellant and held that the charge sheets filed and taken cognizance
of by the Courts outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi are not
relevant for the purpose of registering a case under MCOCA. The
H
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. BRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN 909
KUMAR AND ANR. [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

High Court approved the findings of the Special Court that FIR No.122 A
of2010 was not in pursuance of activities of organized crime syndicate
falling within the purview ofMCOCA. As the requirement of a minimum
of two charge sheets being taken cognizance of by a competent Court in
Delhi was not satisfied, the High Court felt that there was nothing wrong
with the decision of the Special Court.·
B
8. Mr. Sidharth Lut!Jra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Appellant submitted that organized crime is a serious threat to the society
and that statement of objects and reasons have to be taken into account
for interpretation of the provisions of the Act. He submitted that the
restriction placed by the Courts below on the expression '.'Competent
Court" in the definition of continuing unlawful activity is not correct. c
According to him, criminal cases in which cognizance was taken by
Courts outside Delhi are relevant for the purpose of proceeding against
the respondents under MCOCA. He further submitted that organized
crime is not restricted to territory within a State and a restrictive reading
of the word 'Competent Court' would defeat the purpose for which the D
statute was enacted.
9., Mr. U.R. Lal it, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Respondent No. l urged that MCOCA is a special legislation which deals
with organized crime and unless the essential ingredients of the offences
under Sections 3 and 4 are made out, a case under the said statute E
cannot be registered. He submitted that MCOCA operates only withiff
the territoriaUimits of National Capital Territory of Delhi. He submitted
that there is no offence of organized crime which was committed within
the territory of Delhi. He also argued that it is clear from the material on
record that there is no property belonging to the Respondents within the
territory of Delhi and hence, Section 4 of MCOCA is not attracted. He F
also argued that crime is local and anything that is done outside the State
cannot be subject matter of consideration for registration of an offence
under MCOCA. Reliance was placed on Articles 245 and 246 of the
· Constitution of India to submit that MCOCA which extended to the
National Capital Territory of Delhi cannot have extra territorial operation. G
He relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in The State of
Bombay v. Narayandas Mangilal Dayame 1 in support of the said
submissions. Mr. Lalit argued that the complainant in FIR No.69 of
2007, Sudhir Singh, is a resident of Varanasi and according
' .
to him, he
' AIR 1958 Born 68 (FB)
H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A came to Delhi on a business trip and was threatened over phone by the
Respondents. After investigating into the said offence, it was found that
a call was made from a public telephone booth at Varanasi, U.P. All the
antecedent events that were mentioned in the said FIR pertain to activities
in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He submitted that no organised crime
was committed in Delhi and FIR No.69 of 2007 cannot be taken into
B
consideration for proceeding against the Respondents under MCOCA.
Referring to FIR No.122 of2010, Mr. Lalit submitted that Section 506
IPC was a non-cognizable offence at the relevant time. As there was
no cognizable offence, FIR No.122 of 2010 is of no use for proceeding
against the Respondents under MCOCA.
c 10. The menace of organized crime posed a serious threat to civil
society and a need for making special provisions for prevention and
control of criminal activities of the organized crime syndicates and gangs
was recognised by the Maharashtra Legislature which passed "the
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred
D to as "MCOCA"). It was brought into force w.e.f 24'h April, 1999. It is
clear from the statement of objects and reasons that rapid increase in
organised crime was causing serious threat to public order apart from
adversely affecting the economy. The Government was of the opinion
that the existing legal regime was inadequate to deal with the problem
and hence, the necessity for a special law to curb the menace of organised
E crime. By a Notification dated 2"d January, 2002 the Ministry of Home
Affairs, Govt. oflndia extended the provisions ofMCOCA to the National
Capital Territory of Delhi.
11. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the
Act which are relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case. Section
F 5 of the Act2 provides for constitution of 'Special Courts' for trying

2
5. Special Courts
(I) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one
or more Special Courts for such area or areas, or for such case or class or group of cases,
as may be specified in the notification.
G (2) Where any question arises as to the jurisdiction of any Special Court, it shall be
referred to the State Government whose decision shall be final.
(3) A Special Court shall be presided over by a judge to be appointed by the State
Government, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. The
State Government may also appoint, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the
Bombay High Court, additional judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Special Court-

H
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. BRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN 911
KUMAR AND ANR. [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

offences under MCOCA. These Special Courts are competent to try
all offences punishable under MCOCA which are committed within its
local jurisdiction as provided in Section 6 of the Act3. An offence
of organized crime is punishable 'under Section 3 of the Act4 .

. 4)A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a judge or an additional judge of a B
Special Court, unless he immediately before such a appointment, is a sessions judge or
an additional sessions judge.
(5) Where any additional judge is or additional judges are appointed in a Special Court,
the judge of the Special Court may, from time to time, by general or special order in
writing, provide for the distribution of the business of the Special Court among himself
and the additional judge or additional judges and also for the disposal ofurgent business
in the event of his absence or the absence of any additional judges.· c
3
6. Jurisdiction of Special Court
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code. every offence. punishable under this
Act shall, be triable only by the Special Court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed or at the case may be, by the Special Court constituted for trying such
offence under subsection (I) of section 5.
D
4
3. Punishment for organised crime·
(I) Whoever commits an offence of organised crime shall,
(i) if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death or
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of
rupees one lac;
(ii) in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
Jess than five years but .which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be
E
liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.
(2) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates, abets or knowingly
facilitates the commission of an organised crime or any act preparatory to organised
crime, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than
five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a
.fine, subject to a minimum of rupees five lacs. F
(3) Whoever harbours or conceals or attempts to harbour or conceal, any member of an
organised crime syndicate; shall be punishable, With imprisonment for a term which
shall not be Jess than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall
also be liable to a, fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.
(4) Any person who is a member of an organised crime syndicate shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not .be less, than five years but which may
extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum G
fine of rupees five lacs.
(5) Whoever holds any property derived of obtained from commission of an organised
crime or which has been acquired through the organised crime syndicate funds shall be
punishable with a term which, shall not be less than three years but which may extend
. to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, subject to a minimum fine of
rupees two lacs
H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A Section 4 5 of the Act provides for punishment for possessing
unaccountable wealth on behalf of a member of organized crime
syndicate. 'Organized crime', as defined in Section 2 (1 )(e)6 of the Act
simply means a continuing unlawful activity committed by use of violence
for economic gain. 'Continuing unlawful activity' is defined in Section
2(1 )(d)7 of the Act as any activity prohibited by law for the time being in
B
force if it is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three

54. Punishment for possessing unaccountable wealth on behalf of member of

organised crime syndicate.
If any person on behalfof a member of an organised crime syndicate is, or, at any time
c bus been, in possession of movable or immovable property which he cannot
satisfactorily account for, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than three years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be
liable to fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees one lac and such property shall also
liable for attachment and forfeiture, as provided by section 20.
Organised criminals are undoubtedly hard core criminals. They have no derth of most
D modern weapons. Extorting money by spreading terrorism in society is their aim. They
target elite class of society. Naturally, the money they recover is of unusual proportion.
The money is not spent on just causes but to derail state economy. It is therefore,
essential to provide for strictest punishment. Punishment envisaged in the Act is 3 to
10 years of imprisonment which can be extended to life imprisonment. Death penalty
can also be imposed on the criminals kill anyone. So also a fine of 3 to 10 lacs can also
be imposed.
E It will be interesting to compare the criminals under this Act with criminals under
recently repealed Tada Act. Criminals under both Acts differ in attitude and approach.
Criminals under Tada aim at disruptive activities. They are threat to the sovereignty of
Nation. On the contrary criminals under present law are extortionist.
This law also proposes punishment to those who possess any type of property
accumulated through illegal means.

F 6 (e) "organised crime" means 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 person or promoting insurgency;

7
(d) "continuing unlawful activity" means an activity prohibited by law for the time
G being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three
years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime
syndicate or on behalf of such, syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-
sheets have been field before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten
years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence;

H
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. BRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN 913
KUMAR AND ANR. [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

years or more and if it is committed by a member of an 'organized crime A
syndicate' 8 either singly or jointly within the preceding period of 10 years.
Another requirement is the existence of at least two charge sheets which
have been taken cognizance of by competent Courts.
12. The points that arise for consideration in this case are:
i) Whether charge sheets filed in competent Courts outside the B
National Capital Territory of Delhi can be taken into account for
the purpose of constituting a "continuing unlawful activity", and
ii) Whether there can be prosecution under MCOCA without
any offence of organised crime being committed within Delhi.
13. The principles of strict construction have to be adopted for C
interpretation of the provisions of MCOCA, which is a penal statute9•
However, it is no more res integra that even a penal provision should be
interpreted to advance the object which the legislature had in view 10 •
The interpretation of Section 2( I)(d) of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 came up for consideration before this Court D
and Justice R.F. Nariman held as follows:
"24. It is thus clear on a reading of English, U.S., Australian and
our own Supreme Court judgments that the 'Lakshman Rekha'
has in fact been extended to move away from the strictly literal
rule of interpretation back to the rule of the old English case of
Heydon, where the Court must have recourse to the purpose, E
object, text, and context of a particular provision before arriving
at a judicial result. In fact, the wheel has turned full circle. It
started out by the rule as stated in 1584 in Heydon's .case, which
was then waylaid by the literal interpretation rule laid down by the
Privy Council and the House of Lords in the mid 1800s, and has F
come back to restate the rule somewhat in terms of what was
most felicitously put over 400 years ago in Heydon's case." 11

8 (t)"organised crime syndicate" means a group of two or more persons who, acting
either singly or collectively, as a syndicate of gang indulge in activities of organised
crime; G
9 Ranjitsing Brahamajeetsing Sharma v. Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294 (Para

42); State of Maharashtra and ors. v. Lalit Somdutta Nagpal and anr. (2007) 4
sec 171 (para 62)
10 Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra, ( 1976) 3 SCC 684 '1:6
11 Ms. Eera through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

and Anr. in SLP(Crl.) Nos. 2640-42 OF 2016 at para 24 (concurring judgment ofR.F.
Nariman J.) H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] l l S.C.R.

A 14. The commission of crimes like contract killings, extortion,
smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnappings for
ransom, collection of protection money and money laundering, etc. by
organised crime syndicates was on the rise. To prevent such organised
crime, an immediate need was felt to promulgate a stringent legislation.
The Government realized that organised crime syndicates have
B
connections with terrorist gangs and were fostering narcotic terrorism
beyond the national boundaries. MCOCA was promulgated with the
object of arresting organised crime which was posing a serious threat to
the society. The interpretation of the provisions of MCOCA should be
made in a manner which would advance the object of MCOCA.
C Extra Territoriality and Territorial nexus:
15. It was submitted on behalf of the Respondents that MCOCA
is applicable only within the territories of Delhi as per Section 1(2) of the
Act. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel for the
Respondents, the charge sheets filed in a competent Court outside the
D NCT of Delhi cannot be taken into account for satisfying the requisites
of continuing unlawful activity. Support was sought from a judgment of
the Privy Council in Macleod v. Attorney General for New South
Wales 12• The Appellant in that case married Mary Manson in the Colony
of New South Wales. During her lifetime, the Appellant married another
E lady at St. Louis in the State of Missouri, United States of America. He
was indicted, tried and convicted in the Colony of New South Wales for
the offence of bigamy under the Section 54 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act of 1883. Section 54 provided for servitude for seven
years for bigamy 'wheresoever' it takes place. Lord Halsbury, Lord
Chancellor, held that the Appellant was not liable for prosecution as the
F offence of bigamy was not committed by him within the Colony of New
South Wales. The laws made by the Colony of New South Wales would
operate only within its territory.
16. Macleod's case (supra) was considered by the High Court of
Australia in Trustees Executors and Agency Co. Ltd. v. Federal
G Commissioner of Taxatio11 13 wherein it was held that there is no legal
restriction of legislative power on the so-called extra territorial ground.
It was further held that the mere existence of non-territorial elements in
any challenged legislation does not invalidate the law and that the
12 (1891) A.C. 455
13
H (1933) 49 C.L.R. 220
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. BRIJESH SINGH @ARUN 915
KUMAR AND ANR. [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

legislation cannot be said to be invalid if the dominion has some real A
concern or interest in the matter, thing or circumstances dealt with by
the legislation.
17. Macleod's case (supra) was again considered in a later
judgment of the High Court of Australia in Union Steamship Co. of
Australia PTY. Ltd. v. King 14 wherein it was held that a power to B
make laws for the peace, order and good governance for the territory
was, initially, understood to be limited to the area of the territory. The
. objection taken by the employer to an award passed by a compensation
, Court to the jurisdiction of the Courts under Section 46 of the Workers'
Compensation Act, 1926 (State Act of New South Wales) was rejected
by following an earlier judgment in Broken Hill South Limited (Public C
Officer) v. The Commissioner of Taxation (New. South Wales)1 5 in
which it was held as follows:
" ....... But it is within the competence of the State Legislature
to make any fact, circumstance, occurrence or thing in or
connected with the territory the occasion of the imposition upon D
any person concerned therein of a liability to taxation or of any
other liability. It is also within the competence of the legislature to
base the imposition ofliability on no more than the relation of the
person to the territory. The relation may consist in presence within
the territory, residence, domicile, carrying on business there, QI Er
even remoter connections. If a. connection exists, it is for 'the
legislature to decide how far it should go in the exercise of its
powers. As in other matters of jurisdiction or authority courts must
be exact in distinguishing between ascertaining that the
circumstances over which the power extends exist and examining
the mode in which the power has been exercised. No doubt there F
must be some relevance to the circumstances in exercise of the
power. But it is of no importance upon the question of validity
that the liability imposed is, or may be, altogether dispropof!ionate
to the territorial connection or that it includes many cases that
cannot have been foreseen." (emphasis supplied) G
18. In Christopher Strassheim v. Milton Daily 16, (supra), a
question arose whether the Respondent was liable to be tried in the
14 (1988) 166 CLR 1

" 50 C.L.R. 337
1
• 221 U.S. 280 (1911) H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A State of Michigan for an offence committed outside the State. Justice
0.W. Holmes held that the State of Michigan is justified in punishing the
Respondent for acts done outside its jurisdiction which were intended to
produce a detrimental effect within the State; It was held that:
"Acts done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and
B producing detrimental effects within it, justify a State in punishing
the cause of the harm as if he had been present at the effect, if
the State should succeed in getting him within its power".
19. The Judgment of Justice Holmes was followed by the United
States Courts of Appeal in Chua Han Mow v. United States 11 where
c the Petitioner's contention that the United States of America lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction to prosecute him for unlawful acts committed
in Malaysia was rejected. Prosecution of the Petitioner was held justified
under the objective territorial and protective principles as the Petitioner
intended to create detrimental effects in the United States and commit
acts which resulted in such effect when heroin was unlawfully brought
D into the United States.
20. The Indian Federal Court considered the extra territorial powers
of the Union Legislature in The Governor General in Council v. The
Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. 18 and held that the provisions of the
impugned legislation cannot be vitiated on the ground of extra territoriality
E in view of the concern or interest the dominion had with the subject
matter. The Federal Court took note of the judgments subsequent to
Macleod (supra) in which the limitation imposed by a doctrine forbidding
extra territorial legislation was held to be a 'doctrine of somewhat
obscure extent'.
F 21. In State of Bombay v. RMD Chamarbaugwala 19 , this Court
considered the point whether the legislature overstepped the limits of its
legislative field when the impugned act purported to affect men residing
. and carrying on business outside the State. It was held that on the basis
of the doctrine of territorial nexus between the State and activities of the
G Petitioners which are not in the State, the impugned legislation cannot be
held to be beyond the competence of the legislature. This Court
recognized the existence of two elements to establish territorial nexus
which are:
17 730 F.2D. 1308 (1984) (p. 1312) cert. denied, 470 U.S.1031(1985)

" (1944) FCR 229
H "(1957] SCR 874 (p.901)
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. BRIJESH SINGH @ARUN 917
KUMAR AND ANR. [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.] ·

a. The connection must be real and not illusory, and A
b. The liabilities sought to be imposed must be pertinent to that
connection.
22. The doctrine of territorial nexus applied in the
Chamarbaugwala case (supra) which was concerned with tax on
crossword competitions, was extended to sales tax legislation in The B
Tata Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar2° . This Court
found that the doctrine of territorial nexus which was applied in Income
Tax legislation can be extended to Sales Tax legislation as well. However,
this Court did not consider the broad proposition as to whether the theory
of nexus, as a principle oflegislation, is applicable to all kinds oflegislation. c
The doctrine of territorial nexus w~s also applied by this Court in State
of Bihar v. Charusila 1Jasi2 1 which dealt with trust properties.
23. As stated above, the doctrine forbidding extra territorial
legislation-as held in Macloed's case (supra) was subsequently held to
be of somewhat obscure extent. -Statutes made by a Sovereign States D
cannot be said to be.invalid on-the ground of extra territoriality subject to
certain conditions as is clear from the judgments referred to supra. The
same principle was applied to State legislations in the United States of
America. There is no distinction between the applicability of the aforesaid
principle to civil or criminal statutes.
E
24. In the present case, it is sufficient to examine whether there is
a territorial nexus between the charge sheets filed in competent Courts
within the State ofUttar Pradesh and the State ofNCT of Delhi where
the Respondents are being prosecuted. The prosecution of the
Respondents under MCOCA cannot be said to be invalid on the ground
of extra territoriality in case the nexus is sufficiently established. F
25. Organised crime which is an offence punishable under Section
3 of MCOCA means a continuing unlawful activity committed by the
use of forc.e or violence for economic gain.· One relevant pre-condition
· which has to be satisfied before any activity can be considered as a
continuing unlawful activity is that ther~ should be at least two charge · G ·
sheets filed against the members of an organised crime syndicate within
the previous 10 years and a 'competent Court' has taken cognizance of
such charge sheets. In the instant case, there are eight charge sheets
20
[ 1958] SCR 1355 (p.1375)

"(1959) Supp. 2 SCR 619 H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A filed against the Respondents, six out of which are in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. The submission of the Respondents, which was accepted by
the Courts below, is that such charge sheets which are filed in the State
ofUttar Pradesh are not relevant for the purpose of determining whether
the Respondents have indulged in a continuing unlawful activity. The
Courts below held that only charge sheets filed in competent Courts
B
within Delhi have to be taken into account. We are not in agreement ,
with the Courts below.
26. Organised crime is not an activity restricted to a particular
State which is apparent from a perusal of the Statement of Objects and
Reasons. A restrictive reading of the words "competent Court" appearing
C in Section 2 (I)(d) of MCOCA will stultify the object of the Act. We
disagree with the learned senior counsel for the Respondents that it is
impermissible for the Special Courts to take into account charge sheets
filed outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi as that would result
in giving extra territorial operation to MCOCA. A perusal of the charge
D sheets filed against the Respondents in the State of Uttar Pradesh which
are relied upon by the prosecution to prove that organised crime was
being committed by them shows clear nexus between those charge sheets
and the National Capital Territory of Delhi where prosecution was
launched under MCOCA. The twin conditions to establish territorial nexus
in RMD Chamarbaugwala's case (supra) are fulfilled. If members of
E an organised crime syndicate indulge in continuing unlawful activity across
the country, it cannot by any stretch of imagination said, that there is no
nexus between the charge sheets filed in Courts in States other than
Delhi and the offence under MCOCA registered in Delhi. In such view,
we are unable to accept the submission of the Respondents that charge
F sheets filed in competent Courts in the State ofUttar Pradesh should be
excluded from consideration. We hold that 'competent Courts' in the
definition of 'continuing unlawful activity' is not restricted to Courts in
Delhi alone.
CRIME IS LOCAL
27. The learned senior counsel for the Respondents relied upon
G the judgment ofa full Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Narayandas
Mangilal Dayame case (supra) wherein the constitutional validity of
Section 4 of Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriage Act was
considered. A second marriage contracted outside the State was a
bigamous marriage and void as per Section 4 of the said Act and was
H also made punishable under Section 5 with an imprisonment which may
r

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. BRIJESH SINGH @ARUN 919
KUMAR AND ANR. [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

extend to seven years. The Petitioner was tried for contracting a second A
marriage at Bikaner and was found guilty for committing an offence of
bigamy. Chief Justice Chagla following Macleod's case (supra) held
that crime is local and that Section 4 was ultra vires the Bombay
legislature as it suffered from the vice of extraterritoriality. It was
further held that the principle of territorial nexus is not applicable to B
cases of marriage or crime.
28. According to us, the said principle is not applicable to the facts
of this case. The offences alleged to have been committed by the.
Respondents beyond the territories of Delhi are not being tried within
the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The existence of filing of the
charge sheets, as a matter of fact, is taken into consideration merely for C
the purpose of determining the antecedents of the Respondents. 22 The
. Respondents would still be liable to face trial in competent Courts where
the charge sheets are filed.
29. Even if a crime is committed in one State, the accused can be
tried in another State ifthe detrimental effect is in that State- Christopher D
Strassheim v. Milton Daily(supra) followed by the Federal Court of
Appeals in Rocha23 and Chua Han Mow 24 • Itis also relevant to refer to
the judgment of the House of Lords in Director of Public Prosecutions
v. Stonehouse25• A well known politician who was in financial difficulties
simulated his death by drowning to start life afresh with a new identity in
Australia. He made arrangement with five British insurance companies E
to issue a policy in his wife's n1:1me which would be payable to heron his
death. After creating the circumstance of his drowning in Miami, he
fled to Australia on a false passport. He was extradited to England
where he was prosecuted in respect of several offences including attempt
to obtain property by deception. It was held by the House of Lords that
F
the English Courts had jurisdiction to try the offences against the Appellant
on the ground that the instant consequences of the physical acts of the
accused in United States of America was in England.
22
Bharat Shanti Lal Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2003) Born. L.R. (Cri.)947
(para 25-27) (to which Justice Bobde was a party) subsequently approved in State of
Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah & Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 5 (Para 29-33); Om G
Prakash Shrivastava v. State of NCT of Delhi 164 (2009) DLT 218 (Para 33-36);
Jaisingh v. Maharashtra (2003)BomCR(Cri) 1606 (para 19)
23 Rocha v. United States 288 F.2d. 545 (1961) (p. 548), cert. denied 366 U.S.

948(1961)
24 Chua Han Mow v. United States 730 F.20. 1308 (1984) (p. 1312) cert. denied,

470 U.S.1031(1985)
" [ 1977] 2 All ER 909) H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A 30. In Lawson v. Fox & ors. 26 the House of Lords decided the
following points oflaw of general importance:
'Whether in deciding if an offence has been committed under
section 96 (1) and 96 (3) (a) of the Transport Act 1968 it is right to
take into account hours of work and hours of driving done and
B hours of rest taken outside Great Britain which if done or taken
inside Great Britain would fall to be taken into account for the
purpose of computing a driver's working day and hours of driving.
The Respondent/ driver was convicted for the offence of driving
a vehicle for more than 10 hours in a working day, contrary to Section
c 96(1) of the 1968 Act and for working as a driver of a goods vehicle for
a working day which exceeded 11 hours, contrary to Section 96(3)(a) of
the 1968 Act. The Respondent was driving a goods vehicle on round
trips by channel ferry between his employer's depot in England and a
destination in France. The Respondent contended that the period during
which he drove outside England i.e. in France, cannot be taken into
D account. It was held that this presumption based on international comity
that Parliament, while enacting a penal statute, unless it uses plain words
to the contrary, did not intend to make it an offence fo English Law to do
acts in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the English Courts-
unless the act is one which has harmful consequences in England. The
E Respondent was not charged with anything that he did in France but the
fact that he was on duty in the course of his employment was taken into
consideration for trying himjn England.
31. The judgments of the House of Lords pertain to offences
committed outside the country being tried when the consequences of
F such offences are within the country. We have referred to these
judgments only to explain that the principle of 'Crime is local' is not
applicable where the detrimental effect is in another State which can try
the offender. In any event, the Respondents are notbeing tried for the
offences which are subject matter of charge sheets filed in the State of
Uttar Pradesh. The cases in which charge sheets are filed in competent
G Courts outside Delhi shall be tried in those Courts and are taken into
account only for determining the antecedents of the Respondents.
Therefore, the submission on behalf of the Respondents that the crimes
committed outside the State cannot be considered for any purpose
26
[l 974] I All ER 783
H
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. BRIJESH SINGH @ARUN 92f
KUMAR AND ANR. [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

whatsoever is rejected. The upshot of the above discussion is that there A
should be a minimum of two charge sheets of organized crime registered
against the members of the syndicate either separately or jointly for the
purpose of constituting a continuing unlawful activity. Charge sheets
filed outside Delhi can also be taken into account.
32. However, we are in agreement with the submission of the B
learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents that an activity of organizea .
crime in Delhi is a sine·qua non for registration of a crime under
MCOCA. In the absence of an organized crime being committed in
Delhi, the accused cannot be prosecuted on the basis of charge sheets
filed outside Delhi.
c
33. FIR No.122 of 2010 is registered under Sections 341, 506
read with Section 34 of the IPC. Section 341 IPC is punishable with a .
maximum sentence of one month, though it is cognizable offence. Section
506 IPC is a non-cognizable which was made a cognizable offence by a
notification issued by the Delhi Government. This nqtification was
quashed by the High Court of Delhi on 13.01.2003. A second notification D
for the same purpose was issued by the Delhi Government on 31.03.2004
which was challenged in W.P. (C) No.2596 of2007. The.High Court of
Delhi initially stayed and ultimately struck down the second notification
on 18.01.2016. As such, Section 506 IPC was a non-cognizable offence
at the date ofregistration of the FIR and filing of the charge sheet. Only E
· an unlawful activity which is a cognizable offence punishable with . _
minimum sentence of three years or more Would be a continuous unlawful
activity under section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Hence, the FIR No.122 of
2010 cannot be taken into account. '
34. FIR No.69 of2007 was registered on the basis of information F
given by one Sudhir Singh, who is admittedly a resident of Plot No.103,
Saket Nagar, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. He is a politician and a
businessman and when he was on·a trip to Delhi, he was threatened by
the Respondents due to their business rivalry. Several facts pertaining
to the illegal activities of the Respondents in Uttar Pradesh have been
mentioned in the FIR. Sudhir Singh complained of extortion by the G
Respondents for payment of Rs.SO Lakhs as protection money. During
the course of investigation, it was found that the call that was made on
the mobile phone Of Sudhir Singh was from a PCO at Varanasi. It
appears from a close reading of the FIR and the charge sheet in FIR
H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A No.69 of2007, that there was no criminal activity pertaining to organised
crime within the territory of Delhi and the complaint was filed by the
informant at Delhi only for the purpose of invoking MCOCA. We have
thoroughly examined the material placed on record by the prosecution
including the charge sheet and found that there is, no mention of any
property belonging to the Respondents in Delhi. We gave sufficient
B
time to Shri Sidharth Luthra to show us anything from the record pertaining
to possession of property by the Respondents in Delhi. After making
enquiries with the authorities concerned, Mr. Luthra fairly submitted
that the Respondents are not in possession of any property in Delhi. As
there is no organised crime committed by the Respondents within the
c territory of Delhi, there is no cause of action for initiation of proceedings
under MCOCA.
35. The Appeal is disposed of as follows:-
(a) The words 'competent Court' in Section 2(d) of MCOCA is
not restricted to Courts in Delhi and charge sheets filed in Courts
D in other States can be taken into account for the purpose of
constituting continuing unlawful activity;
(b) There cannot be a prosecution under MCOCA without an
organised crime being committed within Delhi; and
E (c) The judgment of the High Court is upheld though for different
reasons.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal disposed of.