# RANJITSING BRAHMAJEETSING SHARMA v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

- **Citation:** [2005] 3 S.C.R. 345
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2005-04-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 2005
- **Bench:** N. Santosh Hegde, B.P. Singh, S.B. Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ranjitsing-brahmajeetsing-sharma-v-st-a-te-of-maharashtra-and-anr-20578
- **Pages:** 42

## Headnote

B
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, I 999 :
ss. 3 and 24 read with ss. 2(d), 2(e), 2(/), ands. 21(4)-/nterpretation
of-Printing of counterfeit stamps-Accused arrested-During investigation, C
a police officer also arrested on ground of rendition of help and support to
organized crime syndicate-Application for bail by police officer-Held,
provisions of the Act must receive a strict construction so as to pass the test
ofreasonableness-s. 21(4) must be construed reasonably so that the court is
able to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and D
conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trialPrima faie s.3(2) is not attracted-Order granting interim bail to continuePenal Code-ss. 107 and JOB-Constitution of India-Article 21.
Evidence-Brain mapping test report-Admissibility of
Words and Phrases :
Expressions, 'abet', and 'conspiracy '-Meaning of in the context of the
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, I 999 :
E
A case of printing counterfeit stamps and forgery in various States p
including the State of Maharashtra was unearthed and fake stamp papers
worth lacs of rupees were recovered during appellant's tenure as
Commissioner of Police, Pune. One 'T' was arrested and a case initially
under various sections of Penal Code was registered. Later, s.3 of the
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 was invoked. During
investigation, the appellant was arrested on the alleged ground of rendition G
of help and support to organized crime syndicate by acts of omission and
commission, i.e. rendering help or support to a police officer through
another police officer, both of whom were co-accused in the case. His bail
application was rejected by the Special Judge as also by the High Court.
345
H
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005) 3 S.C.R.
A Aggrieved, the accused filed the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1. Prima facie section 3(2) of Maharashtra Control of
Organized Crime Act, 1999 is not attracted in the instant case. Sub-section
B (2) of s.3 of the Act provides punishment, inter alia, for facilitating
conspiracy or abetting or commission of a crime by a person knowingly
or any act preparatory to organized crime. The expression 'conspiracy'
is not a term of art. It has a definite connotation. Mens rea to commit the
crime must be established besides the fact of agreement. Mens rea is a
C necessary ingredient for commission of a crime under MCOCA.
(366-D-H; 367-A; 369-B-D]
1.2. The offence under s.3(2) of MCOCA must have a direct nexus
with the offence committed by an organized crime syndicate. Abetment
of commission of offence must be by way of accessories before the
D commission of an offence. An offence may be committed by a public
servant by reason of acts of omission and commission which would amount
to tampering with the investigation or to help an accused. Such an act
would make him an accessory after the commission of the offence. The
High Court does not say that the appellant has abetted 'T' or had
conspired with him. The findings of the High Court as against the appellant
E are attributable to allegations of abetting the two police officers. Both were
public servants. They may or may not have any direct role to play as
regard commission of an organized crime but unless a nexus witfl an
accused who is a member of the organized crime syndicate or an offence
in the nature of organized crime is established, only by showing some
F alleged indulgence to the two co-accused police officers, the appellant
cannot be said to have conspired or abetted commission of an organized
crime. (365-D-E; 369-B-D)
Shri Ram v. The State of UP., AIR (1975) SC 175; Kehar Singh and
Ors. v. The State, (Delhi Admn.) AIR (1988) SC 1883; State of Karnataka v.
G L. Muniswamy and Ors., AIR (1977) SC 1489; P.K. Narayanan v. State of
Kera/a, (1995) 1SCC142 and Saju v. State of Kera/a, AIR (2001) SC 175,
referred to.
1.3. The interpretation clause as regards the expression 'abe

## Text

_Characters 0–39,515 of 98,732. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39515 for what follows._

RANJITSING BRAHMAJEETSING SHARMA
A
v.
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
APRIL 7, 2005
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE, B.P. SINGH AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.]
B
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, I 999 :
ss. 3 and 24 read with ss. 2(d), 2(e), 2(/), ands. 21(4)-/nterpretation
of-Printing of counterfeit stamps-Accused arrested-During investigation, C
a police officer also arrested on ground of rendition of help and support to
organized crime syndicate-Application for bail by police officer-Held,
provisions of the Act must receive a strict construction so as to pass the test
ofreasonableness-s. 21(4) must be construed reasonably so that the court is
able to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and D
conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trialPrima faie s.3(2) is not attracted-Order granting interim bail to continuePenal Code-ss. 107 and JOB-Constitution of India-Article 21.
Evidence-Brain mapping test report-Admissibility of
Words and Phrases :
Expressions, 'abet', and 'conspiracy '-Meaning of in the context of the
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, I 999 :
E
A case of printing counterfeit stamps and forgery in various States p
including the State of Maharashtra was unearthed and fake stamp papers
worth lacs of rupees were recovered during appellant's tenure as
Commissioner of Police, Pune. One 'T' was arrested and a case initially
under various sections of Penal Code was registered. Later, s.3 of the
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 was invoked. During
investigation, the appellant was arrested on the alleged ground of rendition G
of help and support to organized crime syndicate by acts of omission and
commission, i.e. rendering help or support to a police officer through
another police officer, both of whom were co-accused in the case. His bail
application was rejected by the Special Judge as also by the High Court.
345
H
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005) 3 S.C.R.
A Aggrieved, the accused filed the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1. Prima facie section 3(2) of Maharashtra Control of
Organized Crime Act, 1999 is not attracted in the instant case. Sub-section
B (2) of s.3 of the Act provides punishment, inter alia, for facilitating
conspiracy or abetting or commission of a crime by a person knowingly
or any act preparatory to organized crime. The expression 'conspiracy'
is not a term of art. It has a definite connotation. Mens rea to commit the
crime must be established besides the fact of agreement. Mens rea is a
C necessary ingredient for commission of a crime under MCOCA.
(366-D-H; 367-A; 369-B-D]
1.2. The offence under s.3(2) of MCOCA must have a direct nexus
with the offence committed by an organized crime syndicate. Abetment
of commission of offence must be by way of accessories before the
D commission of an offence. An offence may be committed by a public
servant by reason of acts of omission and commission which would amount
to tampering with the investigation or to help an accused. Such an act
would make him an accessory after the commission of the offence. The
High Court does not say that the appellant has abetted 'T' or had
conspired with him. The findings of the High Court as against the appellant
E are attributable to allegations of abetting the two police officers. Both were
public servants. They may or may not have any direct role to play as
regard commission of an organized crime but unless a nexus witfl an
accused who is a member of the organized crime syndicate or an offence
in the nature of organized crime is established, only by showing some
F alleged indulgence to the two co-accused police officers, the appellant
cannot be said to have conspired or abetted commission of an organized
crime. (365-D-E; 369-B-D)
Shri Ram v. The State of UP., AIR (1975) SC 175; Kehar Singh and
Ors. v. The State, (Delhi Admn.) AIR (1988) SC 1883; State of Karnataka v.
G L. Muniswamy and Ors., AIR (1977) SC 1489; P.K. Narayanan v. State of
Kera/a, (1995) 1SCC142 and Saju v. State of Kera/a, AIR (2001) SC 175,
referred to.
1.3. The interpretation clause as regards the expression 'abet' do_es
not refer to the definition of abetment as contained in s.107 IPC. It refers
H to such meaning which can be attributed to it in the general sense with
<;;.=
RANJITSING BRAHMAJEETSING SHARMA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
34 7
grammatical variations and cognate expressions. However, having regard A
to the cognate meaning, the term may be read in the light of the definition
of these words under ss.107 and 108 of the Penal Code. The inclusive
definition although expansive in nature, "communication" or "association"
must be read to mean such communication or association which is in aid
of or render assistance in the commission of organized crime.
B
1364-G-H; 365-AJ
1.4. Any communication or association which has no nexus with the
commission of organized crime would not come within the purview thereof.
It must mean assistance to organized crime or organized crime syndicate
or to a person involved in either of them. It, however, includes: (a)
communication or (b) association with any person with the actual C:
knowledge or (c) having reason to believe that such person is engaged in
assisting in any manner, an organized crime syndicate. Communication
to, or association with, any person by itself, would not, come within
meaning of the aforementioned provision. The communication or
association must relate to a person. Such communication or association D
to the person must be with the actual knowledge or having reason to
believe that he is engaged in assisting in any manner an organized crime
syndicate. (365-A-D)
2.1. Section 24 of MCOCA must be given a proper meaning. A public
servant can be said to have committed an offence within the meaning of E
the said provision if he (i) renders any help or support in any manner in
the commission of an organised crime; (ii) whether before or after the
commission of an offence by a member of an organised crime syndicate
or (iii) abstains from taking lawful measures under this Act or (iv)
intentionally avoids to carry out the directions of any Court or of the
superior police officers in this respect. The purported acts of omission and
commission on the part of the appellant does not attract the first part of
Section 24 of MCOCA. It is not the case of the prosecution that he has
committed any act which comes within the purview of clauses (iii) or (iv)
hereinbefore. (369-E-G)
F
3.1. Presumption of innocence is a human right. Article 21 of the G
Constitution in view of its expansive meaning not only protects life and
liberty but also envisages a fair procedure. Liberty of a person should not
01·dinarily be interfered with unless there exist cogent grounds therefor.
Sub-Section (4) of Section 21 of the Act must be interpreted keeping in
view these salutary principles. Giving an opportunity to the public H
348
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
{2005] 3 S.C.R.
A prosecutor to oppose an application for release of an accused appears to
be reasonable restriction but Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 31
must be given a proper meaning. [370-A-Cj
Narendra Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P., [2004) 10 SCC 699, relied
on.
B
3.2. The provisions of the Act must receive a strict construction so
as to pass the test of reasonableness. The restrictions on the power of the
Court to grant bail should not be pushed too far. If the Court, having
regard to the materials brought on record, is satisfied that in all probability
he may not be ultimately convicted, an order granting bail may be passed.
C The satisfaction of the Court as regards his likelihood of not committing
an offence while on bail must be construed to. mean an offence under the
Act and not any offence whatsoever be it a minor or major offence. What
would further be necessary on the part of the Court is to see the culpability
of the accused and his involvement iri the commission of an organised
D crime either directly or indirectly. The Court at the time of considering
the application for grant of bail shall consider the question from the angle
as to whether he was possessed of the requisite mens rea.
(370-E-G; 372-A)
Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar etc. v. State (Union Territory of Goa,
E Daman and Diu), AIR (1980) SC 499 and C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State
of Andhra Pradesh, AIR (1996) SC 3390, referred to.
3.3. The question as to whether a person is involved in the
commission of organized crime or abetment thereof must be judged
objectively. Only because some allegations have been made against a high
F ranking officer, which cannot be bru'.shed aside; may not by itself be
sufficient to continue to keep him behind the bars although on an objective
consideration the court may come to the conclusion that the evidences
against him are not such as would lead to his conviction. In case of
circumstantial evidence, like the present one, not only culpability or mens
·a rea of the accused should be prima facie established, the Court must also
consider the question as to whether the circumstantial evidence is such
whereby all the links in the chain are complete. [372-C-DJ
3.4. The wording of Section 21(4) does not lead to the conclusion that
the Court must arrive at a positive finding that the applicant for bail has
H not committed an offence under the Act. Section 21(4) of MCOCA must
...
RANJITSING BRAHMAJEETSING SHARMA v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA
349
be construed reasonably. It must be so construed that the Court is able to A
maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction
and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial.
(372-E-FI
3.5. Similarly, the Court will be required to record a finding as to
the possibility of his committing a crime after grant of bail. However, such B
an offence-in futuro must be an offence under the Act and not any other
offence. Since it is difficult to predict the future conduct of an accused,
the court must necessarily consider this aspect of the matter having regard
to the antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and
manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence. (372-G-H)
3.6. For the purpose of considering an application for grant of bail,
although detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned, the order must
demonstrate application of mind at least in serious cases as to why the
applicant has been granted or denied the privilege of bail. The duty of
c
the court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to
arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. However, while D
dealing with a special statute like MCOCA having regard to the provisions
contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, the Court may have
to probe into the m~tter deeper so.as.to enable it to arrive at a finding
that the materials collected against the accused during the investigation
may not justify a judgment of conviction. The findings recorded by the E
Court .while granting or refusing bail undoubtedly would be tentative in
nature, which may not have any bearing on the merit of the case and the
trial court would, thus, be free to decide the case on the basis of evidence
adduced at the trial, without in any manner being prejudiced thereby.
(373-A-CJ
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and Anr.,
(2004) 7 SCC 528; Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N., (2005) 2
SCC 13; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and
Anr., (2005( 2 SCC 42; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (199413 SCC 569
and Prakash Kumar Alias Prakash Bhutto v. State of Gujarat, (200512 SCC
F
~~~~
G
4. Apart from the fact that nothing has been brought on record to
show as to how far a report of brain mapping test can be relied upon, the
report appears to be vague. Furthermore, the admissibility of a result of
a scientific test will depend upon its authenticity. Whether the brain
mapping test is so developed that the report will have a probative value H
350
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R.
A so as to enable a court to place reliance thereupon, is a matter which would
require further consideration, if and when the materials in support thereof
are placed before the Court. Since the prosecution did not rely upon the
said report before the High Court, the same cannot be relied upon.
1384-B-D; 385-GJ
B
Frye v. United States, 293 F 1013 (DC Cir) (1923); Daubart v. Merry/I
Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 113 Set 2786 (1993); ·General Electric Co. v.
Robert K. Joiner, 522 US 139 L.Ed. 2d; Kumho Tire Co. Ltd v. Carmichael,
(1999) 119 S.Ct. 1167 and R. v. Watters., 12000) All ER D 1469, referred
to.
C
5. The High Court may not be entirely. correct in coming to the
conclusion that the appellant prima facie committed an offence under
Section 3(2) as well as Section 24 of MCOCA. In the circumstances, the
order dated 4.11.2004 granting interim bail to the appellant should
continue subject to the same conditions. (386-B-CI
D
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 523
of 2005.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.7.2004. of the Bombay High
Court in Cr!. Application No. 572 of 2004.
E
A. Sharan, Additional Solicitor General, S.K. Dholakia, V.R. Manohar,
Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Vikas Shanna, P. Panneswaran, Siddharth Singla
and Ankur, Shyam Dewani, shrikant Shinde, San jay. Sen, Rana S. Biswas,
Manish Pratap Singh, Ms. Sarla Chandra, Ms. Usha Dahanwkar, S.S. Shinde
and Ravindra K. Adsure with them for the appearing parties.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Interpretation and application of the Maharashtra Control of Organised
Crime Act, 1999 (for short 'MCOCA') is involved in this appeal which arises
out of a judgment and order dated 16th July, 2004 passed by a learned Single
G Judge of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No. 572/2004
refusing bail to the Appellant herein.
The Appellant is a former Commissioner of Police. He was posted in
the city of Pune in the said capacity between 30th April, 2000 and 31st
December, 2000. He was appointed Commissioner of Police, Mumbai on or
H about }st January, 2003. Allegedly, he was so posted upon supercession of
...
RAN.IITSING BRAHMAJEETSING SHARMA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 351
a few officers. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on A
25.11.2003 but without taking any further action thereupon, he was allowed
to superannuate on 30.11.2003.
One Abdul Karim Ladsa Telgi (hereinafter referred to as 'Telgi') was
arrested and proceeded against for alleged commission of offence of printing
counterfeit stamps and forgery in various States including the State of B
Maharashtra. He was lodged in Bangalore Jail since November, 200 l.
During the Appellant's tenure as Commissioner of Police, Pune, fake
stamp papers worth Rs. 2.98 lacs were seized whereupon a first infonnation
report bearing C.R. No. 135 of 2002 came to be registered at Bund Garden
Police Station, Pune under Sections 120-B, 255, 249, 260, 263(a) and (b), C
478, 472 and 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The said offence was
being investigated by one Mr. Deshmukh but having regard to the magnitude
thereof, three teams lead by one Mr. S.M. Mushrif, Addi. Commissioner of
Police (Crime) were formed. The said Mr. Mushrif is said to be a brother of
a Minister of the Government of Maharashtra. On or about 16.07.2002, D
however a proposal was mooted to invoke Section 3 of the MCOCA and
upon obtaining the opinion of Senior Public Prosecutor therefor, the same
was invoked.
One Mr. Mulani, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime Branch)
had been included in the field work team along with other officers in E
connection with the investigation of the said crime. Overall supervision of
the said crime, however, was entrusted to one Mr. Maheshgauri, Joint
Commissioner of Police.
On the ground of alleged involvement in the aforementioned case, the
Appellant was arrested on l.12.2003 whereafter a remand application for 15 F
days of police custody was made but he was remanded to police custody
from 2.12.2003 to 9.12.2003 and thereafter to judicial custody. His application
for bail was rejected by the Special Court, Pune by an order dated 19.1.2004
whereupon he filed an application for grant of bail before the High Court. By
reason of the impugned order, the said application has been rejected.
G
Before adverting to the rival contentions raised in this appeal, we may
notic.e some admitted facts.
On the basis of the information received by the Appellant and on his
direction to intercept the car and on his telephonic instruction thereabout, a H
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2005) 3 S.C.R.
A first information report dated 7 .6.2002 was lodged. During the course of the
investigation of the said case, number of places were raided and huge quantity
of stamps, printing machinery worth Rs. 21,28,47,63,824 were seized from
several accused persons.
The provisions of the MCOCA were invoked against Telgi who figured
B as accused No. 23 and Mr. Shabir Sheikh, accused No. 25 on the ground that
a period of 90 days was coming to an end on 3 .9 .2002. On or about 22.11.2002,
Mr. Jaiswal, DIG, SRPF, Mumbai granted an approval to invoke the provisions
of the MCOCA whereupon DCP, Dr. Jai Jadhav took over investigation of
the said case.
c
D
Before the High Court, the role of the Appellant was said to be rendition
of help and support to organized crime syndicate by certain acts of omission
and commission, i.e., by rendering help ;)r support to Mulani, a co-accused
when he was Commissioner of Police, Pune and through API-Dilip Kamat,
co-accused while ~e was the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai.
The allegations against the Appellant as have been noticed by the High
Court are as under :
"I. The applicant knew the adverse antecedents of Mulani since. 1996.
The respondents have relied on the following circumstances and the
E
sequence of events in support of their case against the applicant.
(a) A complaint about corruption was received in respect of Mulani
on 14.9.1996, who was then the Sr. Inspector of Police at Dongri
Police Station, Mumbai. A copy of this complaint was also received
by the applicant, who was then working as Jt. Commissioner of Police,
F
Mumbai and bears his signature on it. The said complaint was
forwarded by the applicant to Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai.
G
(b) In the affidavit dated 29.10.2002 filed by the applicant in his
capacity as Commissioner of Police, Pune before the Maharashtra
State Administrative· Tribunal (MAT) against Mulani he has
categorically affirmed that conduct of Mu Jani was found to be highly
suspicious in sensational murder case of one Faizulla Khan.
(c) On 6.9.2002, the Investigation was handed over to DCP Jay Jadhav
as by then the provisions of MCOCA were invoked against two of
the Accused in C.R. No. 135/2002. New teams were formed for the
H
investigation under MCOCA. While forming the team, the applicant
RANJITSING BRAHMAJEETSING SHARMA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 353
included Mulani's name in the investigation team in connection with A
the investigation of C.R. No. 135/2002 (Page No. 12694 of
chargesheet) though he was specifically told by DCP Jay Jadhav not
to include him in the team (statement of CDP Jay Jadhav Page 11941
Of the Chargesheet). It was on the pretext that Pl Deshmukh was too
overburdened being in charge of Bund Garden police station and it B
was only Mulani who knew all the facets of the case.
(d) The investigation revealed that Ashok Basak, Addi. Chief Secretary
(Home), State of Maharashtra (for short, "Basak") had informed the
appli~ant on 6.9.2002 about Mulani being in telephonic contact with
Telgi, who was then lodged in Central Jail at Bangalore and his C
tainted role in fake stamp case. This information was passed on to
Basak by Adhip Choudhari, Addi. Chief Secretary (Home),
Government of Kamataka. The applicant had assured Ashok Basak
that he would remove Mulani from investigation. Despite this, Mulani
~as not neutalised by the applicant and he was allowed to continue
in the investigation team.
D
(e) There is no dispute that atleast on 6.9.2002 Basak had shared the
said information with the applicant.
(f) A complaint of corruption dated 15.7.2002 received from President,
Pune Forum Citizeri, against ACP Mulani, was received by the E
applicant on 31.8.2002.
(g) Mulani was transferred to Jat, Dist-Sangli by the order of the
Government dated 4.9.2002. This order was received in Pune on
6.9.2002. The order of transfer of Mulani was not served till he had
obtained a stay against the transfer from the MAT on 6.9.2002 (Page p
12843).
(h) The Stay was for transfer to JA T Division and not for internal
transfer. Yet, Mulani was not transferred from the investigation of
C.R. No. 135/2002, on the other hand, Mulani was sent to Bangalore
on 18.9.2002 all alone without the 1.0.
G
(i) The Government of Maharashtra had constituted Special Task
Force (STF) for enquiring into all the pending cases relating to
counterfeit stamps in the Sta~e of Maharashtra and the applicant was
appointed as the Chairman to head the STF. Not a single meeting of
this "STF was convened by the applicant.
H
354
A
B
c
D
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R.
G) Mulani was allowed to be associated with the investigation till
30.9.2002 and he was transferred to Special Branch only on 30.9.2002
(Page No. 12846).
(k) On JO. I 0.2002 certain names were recommended for reward in
connection with the investigation of C.R. No. 135/2002. Although
Mulani's name was not listed initially, it was specifically added by
the applicant in his own handwriting.
(1) The applicant did not ensure the filing of a properly reasoned
chargesheet in C.R. No. 135/2002 P.S. Bund Garden and did not
ensure the timely application ofMCOCA to the whole case. Reference
statement of the Director General of Police, Maharashtra Shri S.C.
Malhotra. The filing of the chargesheet was hurried through by the
applicant (Reference statement of Kishore Jadhav - Page 11947).
II. On this background, on and from 1.1.2003 the applicant was posted
as Commissioner of Police, Mumbai.
(a) The applicant was well aware about various cases of stamps scam
which were pending in Mumbai, while he was working as Jt.
Commissioner, Mumbai during the year on 8.6.2002, he had sent a
wireless message calling for the details of these cases.
E
(b) On 9.1.2003, DIG Jaiswal alongwith Addi. D.G. Karnataka Shri
Kumar personally met and informed the applicant about Telgi enjoying
all comforts in his flat at Cuffe Parade, Mumbai. He ought to have
immediately taken coercive action and ensured its implementation.
F
G
H
(c) Thereafter, a written report (Page 12181) dated 10.1.2003 was
sent by DIG Jaiswal setting out in detail the facts noticed by him
during their visit to Cuffe Parade flat. Ori this letter, the applicant had
made a noting that API Kamat and the constables be placed under
suspension with immediate effect. However, the record shows that
they were not suspended till 15.1.2003 and no active steps were taken
by the applicant to ensure the immediate suspension though it was
within his powers to ensure that the same was done with immediate
effect. The noting dated 15.1.2003 on (Page Nos. 12202 and 12203)
clearly shows that till 15.1.2003 these police personnel were not
suspended.
(d) It is significant to mention that DIG Jaiswal in his report had
-
RANJITSING BRAHMAJEETSING SHARMA v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 3 5 5
specifically voiced an apprehension that a big seizure may be A
concocted in order to protect the erring police officer, API Dilip
Kamat and in fact, this apprehension came though because of the
conspiracy that was hatched between the officials of Crime Branch,
Mumbai (Statement of ACP Padwal at Page No. 11087).
III. According to the prosecution, following circumstances could not B
be explained by the applicant.
(a) The fact that he had a closed door meeting with A.K. Telgi in
isolation between himself and A.K.L. Telgi only to the exclusion of
other high ranking officers (Statement of ACP Supriya Patil at Page
No. 11912, DCP (H.Q.) Koregaonkar at Page No. 11898 and DCP C
Jay Jadhav at Page No. 111940).
(b) The applicant knew A.K.L. Telgi even when he was at Mumbai
earlier is also apparent from the statement of DCP Vasant Koregaonkar
(Page No. 11898)
(c) Brain Maping (P-300) of AKL Telgi, shows that he had given D
positive responses to the question relating to payment made to the
applicant, favour shown by the applicant in Pune cases and facilities
provided in Mumbai custody by the applicant (Page No. 12960 to
12963)."
The plea taken by the Appellant herein about his innocence was rejected E
by the High Court upon arriving the following findings :
(i)
Despite possession of powers which he could have used against
accused involved in the case, as also against the erring officers,
he protected and projected Mulani and Kamat as good and
responsible officers. The Appellant was aware of the tainted F
background and adverse antecedents of Mulani and both the
accused visited Bangalore with him. After the provisions of the
MCOCA were invoked and Dr. Jai Jadav was appointed as
investigating officer, the name of Mulani was included in the
investigation team by the Appellant herein. A calculated attempt G
was made by the Appellant herein to continue Mulani in the
investigation team and was assigned responsible role to play.
Despite his transfer to Jat, district Sangli by the order dated
4.9.2002 which was received on 6.9.2002, Mulani was not
neutralized till 30th September, 2002 although the Appellant had
received an information from the Additional Chief Secretary, H
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R.
A
Ashok Basak that Mulani had been contacting Telgi telephonically
who was then lodged in Central Jail.
(ii) "Instead, he allowed Mulani to continue in the investigation team
even after 6.9.02, this lapse on the part of the applicant under
any circumstances cannot be termed as innocent, innocuous and
B
inadvertent. This observation becomes stronger if we look at ~he
subsequent events, i.e. overtacts of the applicant after 6.9.02.
After 6.9.02 Mulani was continued in the investigation team. He
was sent to Bangalore all alone on 18.9.02. When a proposal was
placed before the applicant to recommend names of officers for
c
rewards for their outstanding role in the fake stamps case
consisting of nine names, the applicant on 10. l 0.02 included the
name of Mulani in his own handwriting in the said list of officers.
This cannotbe termed as innocent dereliction of duties. At every
stage it, prima fade, shows that there was a calculated attempt
on the part of the applicant to continue Mulani in the investigation
....
•
D
team and see that he is projected as most efficient officer despite
the knowledge of his adverse antecedents and the tainted role in
the investigation of fake stamps case."
(iii) "The facts of the case would go to show that his association with
Mulani were with actual knowledge or atleast there are reasonable
E
grounds to.believe that the applicant was aware that Mulani was
engaged in assisting the organised crime syndicate of Telgi."
(iv) "In my opinion, the acts and commissions on the parts of the
applicant in helping and supporting Mulani and Kamat would,
primafacie, fall within the first part of Section 24 and therefore
-
it would not be correct to state that Section 24 is not attracted.
F
The role of the applicant clearly demonstrates that he rendered
help and support to the member of an organised crime syndicate."
(v) "In so far as "Cuffe Parade flat" episode is concerned, it is true
that the applicant took over as Commissioner of Police Mumbai
on l.l.2003. The custody ofTelgi was with Mumbai police from
G
20.l 0.02 to 2 l. l.03. However, fact remains that on 9. l.2003,
DIG Jaiswal along with Addi. D.G. Kamataka-Shri Srikumar
had personally metthe applicant and informed him about Telgi's
enjoying all comforts in his flat at Cuffe Parade, and conducting
his unlawful activities on mobile phone, requesting him to take
H
immediate coercive action and ensure its implementation."
RANJITSING BRAHMAJEETSING SHARMA v. STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 3 5 7
(vi) As regard application of the provisions of the MCOCA, the High A
Court was of the opinion that as the Appellant knowingly
facilitated the commission of an organized crime through Mulani
at Pune and Kamat at Mumbai, prima facie, he committed an
offence under Section 3(2) of the MCOCA and having abetted
them also committed an offence under Section 4 thereof.
Submissions of Mr. V.R. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the Appellant are as under :
(a) The Appellant did not include Mulani in the investigating team.
B
In fact he was included in the field track team by Mr. Mushrif for the
purpose of tracing and arresting accused persons which does not C
come within the purview of the investigation of the offence or
interrogation of the accused.
(b) As regard the allegation regarding abetment of Kamat, it was
pointed out that when custody of Telgi was taken by Mumbai Police
between 20th October, 2002 and 21.st January, 2003, one Mr. M.N D
Singh was the Commissioner of Mumbai Police during which period
Te1gi was allegedly not kept in custody and was staying in his own
flat or hotel and only on or about 9th January, 2003 when Mr. Jaiswal
upon visting the flat of Mr. Telgi found out the same and brought it
to the notice ofthe,Appellant orally whereupon the order of suspension E
was passed on telephone by him. On I 0th January, 2003 which
happened to be a Friday, Jaiswal addressed a letter to the Chief
Secretary, Maharashtra with a copy to the Appellant which 1¥as
received in his Office on 12th January, 2003 and on that day itself an
order of suspension was passed but the Joint Commissioner actually
placed Kamat and others on suspension on 15th January, 2003. (c)Even F
during the raids made in the Bhiwandi Godown on the night of 9th
January, 2003 seizure of stamps worth Rs.820 crores was made, out
of which some were found to be genuine ones and, thus, such seizures
whether directed against Telgi or Sheikh having resulted in demolition
ofTelgi empire, the Appellant cannot be said to have aided or abetted G
the commission of any offence. In any event, having regard to the
finding of the learned Single Judge that the Appellant thereby did not
aid or abet Telgi who was proceeded against under MCOCA, but
merely abetted the abettors and, thus, the provisions thereof are not
applicable.
H
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R.
A
(d) So far as alleged acts of omissions and commissions on the' part
of the Appellant between the period 9th January, 2003 to 15th January,
2003 are concerned, even in the chargesheet he is said to have only
aided Mulani and, thus, the provisions of the MCOCA are not
applicable.
B
c
D
(e) As regard the allegations that the Appellant continued to keep
Mulani in the investigation team, our attention has been drawn to the
fact that immediately after the order of transfer was passed on 4th
September, 2002, Mulani moved the Administrative Tribunal and
obtained an order of stay on 6th September, 2002 which was in the
following terms :
"The Applicant, who is working as Assistant Commissioner of Poiice,
Crime Branch, Pune has to retire within about 11 months. His service
record seems to be very good. Hence transfer order of the applicant
dated 04-09-2002 is stayed until further orders. Respondents to file
a reply."
It is only on that date, the Appellant was informed by Shri Basak about
Mulani's integrity. Mulani was pulled out of the Crime Branch and posted in
a Special Branch by the Appellant despite threat of contempt and in fact a
)
contempt petition was filed by Mr. Mulani in the Maharashtra State
-
E Administrative Tribunal, at Mumbai.
F
G
(t) Even the Director General of Police had certified Mulani as an
excellent officer in the year 2003 and upon invocation of MCOCA,
Dr. Jai Jadav was appointed as investigating officer. Though he was
required to find out suitable officers to be included in his team, Dr.
Jai Jadav made inquiries from the Appellant as also the Joint
Commissioner, as to the names of the suitable officers therefor and
the name of Mulani was suggested. Thus, it would not b~ correct to
contend that Mr. Mulanl was kept in the investigating team by the
Appellant.
(g) Even assuming that there had been gross dereliction or carelessness
on the part of the Appellant, there is nothing on record to show that
the Appellant had benefitted himself in any manner whatsoever or
had the requisite mens rea.
As regard filing of chargesheet against the wife, daughter and brother
H
of Telgi, there had been difference of opinion between Mushrif and
1
\
I
1
'·
RANJITSING BRAHMAJEETSING SHARMA 1•. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 3 59
Deshmukh wherewith the Appellant was not involved. Mr. Jaiswal A
prejudged the Appellant's guilt.
(h) As regard initiation of disciplinary proceeding, our attention was
invited to the fact that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) was
constituted on 2nd November, 2002 in the following terms :
"Government Resolution : Government has decided to create a Special B
Investigation Team (S.l.T.) to make in-depth investigation and followup of action in bogus stamp case headed by Shri S.K. Jaiswal, Deputy
Inspector General of Police S.R.P.F., Mumbai. He will be assisted by
one Deputy Commissioner of Police, one Assistant Commissioner of
Police, and three inspectors of Police. The names of these team C
members will be decided by the Director General of Police. The
infrastructural support in terms of manpower, vehicle and
communication, etc., will be provided by the Pune City Police.
The team will report to Shri A.K. Agarwal, Additional Director
General of Police, C.l.D., Pune.
D
The Special Investigation Team will also look into the charges
made by Shri Mushrif, Additional Commission of Police, Pune."
Mr. Jaiswal found the Appellant's guilt of dereliction of duty as early as on
3rd April, 2003 and despite the limited jurisdiction of the Special Investigation E
Team, he exceeded his brief implicating the Appellant. In this connection our
attention has also been drawn to the recommendation made by SIT against
various persons who do not figure as accused, viz., Prakash Deshmukh, Ash0k
Kamble, Kishore Jadhav, DCP Dr. Jai Jadhav, Vasant Koregaonkar which are
as under :
"(v) Number of acts of omission and commission during the course F
of investigation lie squarely at door of Senior formations of Pune
City Police. This investigation was extremely crucial as the case had
national ramifications and the financial structure of the State of
Maharashtra and Govt. of India was being undermined systematically.
Hence, it is for the Govt. to consider appropriate action against Shri G
S.M. Mushrif, Shri M.S. Maheshgauri and Shri R.S. Sharma for their
several acts of omission and commission as detailed earlier."
It has been pointed out that despite such adverse comments both Mushrif and
Maheshgauri have been cited only as witnesses and, thus, the Appellant was
discriminated against.
H
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R.
A
(i) As regard application of MCOCA, the learned counsel would
contend that the provisions thereof cannot be given such wide
interpretation as has been done by the learned Single Judge.
B
c
D
E
F
G
(j) As Mulani never visited Bangalore alone, the learned Judge
committed a factual error in this behalf.
(k) As regard recommendations for grant of reward in favour of
Mulani, it was pointed out that the learned Judge had misread and
misinterpreted the context in which such recommendation was made.
It was pointed out that DCP Zone II on l 0.10.2002 gave a list of
officers who have done the best works which is as under :
"(I) P.I. Shri Prakash Deshmukh
(2) PSI Shri Chavan
(3) PC Shri Katke N.K. BN 4059
(4) PC Shri Steven Sundaram, B.N. 756
(5) P.I. Shri Kadam (who has refusf.d to take up investigation)
(6) API Shri Thakare
(7) PSI Shri Balla!
(8) API Shri Karnire
(9) Civilian Computer Software Engineer, Mr. Davis K.T.
(10) H.C. Lele"
According to the Appellant, however, in order of priority, the name of
(l) PSI Shri Chavan, (2) P.I. Shri Prakash Deshmukh C:U P.I. Shri Kadam, (4)
PC Shri Steven Sundaram, B.N. 756, (5) PC Shri Steven Sundaram, B.N.
756, (6) H.C. Lele were· recommended and, furthermore, the following
endorsement was made :
"I have indicated priority above. Also include names of ACP Mulani/
Yadav and Davies in the text."
The names of ACP Mulani/Yadav and Davies, thus, were directed to be
included only in the text, i.e., the history of the case and not for the purpose
H of grant of any reward.
RANJITSING BRAHMAJEETSING SHARMA v. STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 3 61
Mr. A. Sharan, the learned Addi. Solicitor General appearing on behalf A
of the CBI, on the other hand, would contend that the Appellant had known
Telgi both as a scamster as well as a person for a long time, as would appear
from the statement of one Mr. R.S. Mopalwar, an IAS officer
It was urged that from the statement of Mr. Maheshgauri, it would
appear that the· Appellant met Telgi alone, apparently for the purpose of B
interrogation, but no record thereof is available. The saicl ;tat.:inent is supported
by Smt. Supriya Patil Yadav and Shri Vasant Koregaonkar, an affidavit of
Mr. Mushrif in the Public Interest Litigation by Shri Anna Hazare.
According to the learned counsel the Appellant has helped those officers
who did not want to make Telgi's wife, daughter and brother as accused by C
dragging his feet.
Mr. Sharan would contend that Mulani had in fact been involved in
the investigating team work, as would appear from the notesheet file of
investigation, inasmuch as he had interrogated some witnesses. Our attention
has also been drawn to the answers given by the Appellant himself in response D
to the questionnaire dated 7 .11.2003 contending that the Appellant accepted
that Mulani had not been taken out of the team till 30th September, 2002
although he was transferred on 4th September, 2002.
Our attention has further been drawn to the brain mapping test of
Telgi to show that the Appellant had accepted unlawful gratification from E
him.
According to the learned counsel, since beginning the Appellant had
knowledge about the magnitude of the offence but despite the same, he
helped Kamat by not implementing his order of suspension till 15th January,
2003 and, thus, allowed him to take steps to protect himself by arranging a F
fake seizure as was apprehended by Mr. Jaiswal. Drawing our attention to the
judgment of the learned Single Judg1~, it was contended that having regard to
the provisions of the MCOCA, the Appellant must be held to have conspired
with the members of the organizing team by facilitating commission of the
crime. According to the learned counsel, in view of the sub-section (4) of
Section 21 of the MCOCA, the High Court has rightly refused to grant bail
to the Appellant.
MCOCA was enacted to make special provisions for prevention and
control of, and for coping with, criminal activity by organized crime syndicate
or gang, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
G
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R.
A
The Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting the said Act are as
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
under :
"Organised crime has been for quite some years now come up as a
I
.
very serious threat to our society.