Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bhaya alias Raju s/o Shankar Rajput, was convicted by the Special Court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOC Act) at Nagpur for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act and under Section 384 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of rupees five lacs for the MCOC offences, and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of rupees two thousand for the IPC offence. The appellant challenged his conviction by way of Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2003 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The facts leading to the prosecution were that on 28-6-2001 at 6:30 p.m., the appellant, a member of the gang of absconding accused Anil Paunipagar, entered the shop of Ashok Moudekar and demanded Rs. 1,000/- as Khandani (protection money). The appellant threatened Ashok that if the demand was not fulfilled, the appellant and other gang members would cause hurt to Ashok and his servants. Based on Ashok's complaint, the police registered an offence under Section 384 IPC. The appellant was also caught in another crime on 2-7-2001. During investigation, the police found that the appellant, as a member of Anil Paunipagar's gang, had created a reign of terror in Nagpur. The court considered the legal issues of whether the demand of protection money by a gang member constitutes organised crime under the MCOC Act and whether the conviction under Section 384 read with Section 511 IPC was sustainable. The appellant's counsel argued for acquittal, while the Additional Public Prosecutor supported the conviction. The court analyzed the evidence and held that the appellant's actions clearly fell within the definition of organised crime under the MCOC Act, as he was a member of a crime syndicate and engaged in unlawful activities. The court also held that the threat of hurt to induce payment amounted to an attempt to commit extortion under the IPC. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences imposed by the Special Court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Organised Crime - Khandani (Protection Money) - Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 - The appellant, a member of the gang of absconding accused Anil Paunipagar, entered the shop of Ashok Moudekar on 28-6-2001 and demanded Rs. 1,000/- as Khandani, threatening hurt if not paid. The court held that such demand by a gang member constitutes organised crime under the MCOC Act, as it is an unlawful activity by a member of a crime syndicate. The conviction under Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) was upheld. (Paras 1-3) B) Criminal Law - Attempt to Extortion - Section 384 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellant threatened the complainant with hurt if the demand for protection money was not fulfilled. The court held that this amounts to an attempt to commit extortion, as the threat of injury was made to induce the complainant to part with money. The conviction under Section 384 read with Section 511 IPC was upheld. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the demand of protection money (Khandani) by a member of an organised crime syndicate constitutes an offence under Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999, and whether the conviction under Section 384 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentences imposed by the Special Court under MCOC Act at Nagpur upheld.
Law Points
- Organised crime
- Khandani
- protection money
- MCOC Act
- Section 3(1)(ii)
- Section 3(4)
- Section 384 IPC
- Section 511 IPC
- gang member
- absconding accused
- Special Court
- Nagpur
