Dismissed

Kailas Gangaram Bhise v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2007WP/1139/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenged a sanction granted by police authorities under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 for initiation of proceedings. The High Court rejected the petition, holding that the absence of an individual charge sheet against the petitioner did not justify quashing the sanction or imply non-application of mind.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected, sanction granted under MCOCA 1999 upheld.

Kailas Gangaram Bhise Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1139 OF 2007

¶5

---------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office : Memorandum of Coram : appearances, Court’s : Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions : orders and Registrar’s orders :

¶6

Mr. K. D. Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

Mrs. V. V. Kejariwal, APP for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶8

CORAM : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR

¶9

AND Mrs. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶10

DATE : OCTOBER 3, 2007.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard. The learned advocate for the

¶13

. petitioner has stated that petitioner is not pressing for the reliefs in terms of prayer Clause (b). The challenge is restricted to the sanction granted by the police authorities for initiation of proceedings under Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act,

¶14

1999, in respect of which reliefs are sought

¶15

under prayer Clause (c) and (e).

¶16

It is the grievance of the petitioner

¶17

¶18

that	the sanction has been granted	without
proper	application of mind by the	concerned
authority	in as much as that it has	been
recorded	in the sanction that there	are
offences	registered against the	petitioner,
out	of which charge sheet has been filed	in
respect	of 7 offences, but in fact there	is no
charge	sheet filed against the	petitioner.
Attention	is sought to be drawn to	the
expression	"continuing unlawful	activity"
defined	under Section 2(d) of the	Maharashtra
Control	of Organized Crimes Act 1999.	The
definition	of the expression	"continuing
unlawful	activity" under S. 2(d) itself	is a
clear	answer to the contentions sought to	be
canvassed	on behalf of the petitioner.	The
said	expression "continuing unlawful	activity"
means	an activity probihited by law for	the
time	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 organized	crime
syndicate	or on behalf of such syndicate	in
respect	of which more than one charge	sheet
have	been filed before a competent	court

¶19

¶20

within	the preceding period of ten ye	ars and
that	court has taken cognizance	of such
offence.	Obviously the charge sh	eet referred
to	in the said definition refer to	offences
and	not to the accused person,	as such.
Besides	the charge sheet may be in	relation to
any	one member or more members	of the
organized	crime syndicate. Being so,	merely
because	there was no charge sheet	individually
against	the petitioner, that would not	be a
justification	to conclude that the	authorities
did	not apply their mind before	according
sanction	or approval for initiati	on of
proceedings	under the said Act. As	no other

¶21

point is canvassed in the matter, the petition

¶22

fails and is hereby rejected.

¶23

Sd/- [ R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.]

¶24

Sd/- [Smt. V. K. TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Kailas Gangaram Bhise v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailas Gangaram Bhise v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anwar Ali Javed Ali Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Morarji Thakkar Vs Madhav Pandurang Birar and Anr.

Deepak Morarji Thakkar Vs Sadashiv Tukaram Gaikar and Anr.

Bhiwandi Video Parlour Exhibitors . and Ors. . Vs State of Maharashtra . and Ors. .

Ramesh Madhav Bhadge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Laxman Prabhu Vs the State of Maharashtra