The State of Maharashtra v. Latif Kaml @ Katal Shaikh & Ors.

Mr. V.B. Konde Deshmukh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Applicant. A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: MARCH 5, 2009 CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI P.C.:- This is an application for leave to file appeal against the order dated 14th October, 2008 passed by the learned District Judge-I and Special Judge under MCOC Act, Pune, in MCOC Special Case No. 4 of 2005, by which the respondents were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(ii) and 3(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

The case of the prosecution was that on 15th April, 2004, Police Inspector (Crimes) Vishrantwadi Police Station, Pune, received information that one Firoz Yusuf Khan, who was required in Crime No. 81 of 2004, registered in L.T. Marg Police Station, Mumbai, was 2 coming to Chavan Chawl, Vishrantwadi. Police Inspector Panhalkar and his staff along with two panchas went on the spot and arranged trap at about 8 p.m. As per description given by the informant, one person was found coming along with one bag in his hand. Police caught that person, conducted the search, and two country-made revolvers, one knife, five mobiles, three chargers and two ladies purses were found in possession of the said person, viz., Firoz Khan. Police seized the articles under panchanama. On the basis of the complaint filed by the Police Inspector, case was registered under Crime No. 3021 of 2004 under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

During the course of investigations, it was revealed that accused Firoz Khan had committed several offences within the jurisdiction of Pune, along with his companions. The accused and companions used to commit serious offences like kidnapping for ransom. They also used to commit offences under the NDPS Act, etc. Firoz Khan and his companions, viz., Latif Kamal @ Katal Shaikh, Mansoor Ishak Shaikh, Siraj Ismail Sayyed, Vikram Trilokchand Malyar @ Vicky Nepali and Samir Jahangir Khan were engaged in continuing unlawful activities, by an individual, singly or jointly as a member of an 3 organised crime syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence. Some of these companions are the accused in the present case.

The learned District Judge found that though the State had been able to establish that there were many cases against Firoz Khan, but there was no link established between Firoz Khan and the accused in this case. In paragraph 27 of the judgment, the Investigating Officer, P.W.5, has been discussed by the learned Judge. The learned Judge also, in paragraph 32, has recorded as follows:-

It is needless to mention that only one crime No. 48/2003, is shown pending against accused Mansoor. I have perused papers of Crime No. 48/2003, placed on record. Material appearing on record is quite short to attract provisions under MCOC Act, against accused Mansoor. Learned Advocate Shri. Suryawanshi, appearing for accused Mansoor contended that accused Mansoor is Electrician and he is earning member of the family. He is in jail since last more than 4 years. Material appearing on record is quite short to prove that accused Mansoor is engaged in continuing unlawful activity. There is no material on record to show that accused conspires or attempts to commit or abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organised crime or any act preparatory to organised crime.