Chhota Shakeel Gang MCOCA Court Judgement

.. 1 ..
MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY UNDER MCOC ACT AT GR.BOMBAY MCOC SPECIAL CASE NO.05 OF 2007
The State of Maharashtra, (at the instance of DCB CID Mumbai,C.R.No.84/2001) Versus 1. Salim Iqbal Qureshi @ Salim Fruit ) 2. Jamil Haji Abdul Jabbar Shaikh 3. Mohd. Sabir Suleman Shaikh 4. Shahidmiyan Natthumiyan Qureshi 5. Afzal @ Raju Chocolate Abdul Kadar Supariwala 6. Mohd.Salim Alim Khan 7. Mushtaque Abdul Rehman Nawab ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ..Accused
..Complainant.
8. Shaikh Shakeel Babu Mohiddin Shaikh @ Chhota Shakeel 9. Anwar Mohiddin Shaikh
) ) ) Wanted Accused
..2.........
.. 2 ..
Mr.D.M.Shah, Spl.P.P.for the State. Mr.S.Pasbola, advocate for accused no.1 Ms.Trupti Shetty, advocate for accused no.2 Mr.Jagdish Shetty,advocate for accused nos.3 to 5 Ms.Saba Qureshi, advocate for accused nos.6 and 7. CORAM : THE SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER MCOC ACT SHRI S.T.MAHAJAN Court Room No.56 DATE : 24th January, 2011
ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. The accused nos.1 to 7 are charge sheeted by DCB
CID Unit-1,C.R.No.84/2001 (MRA Marg Police Station CR No.360/01) for the offences punishable u/sec.387, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC, r/w 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of M.C.O.C. Act 1999, on the complaint of Rahul Chabra and for the State of Maharashtra by M.B. Kurne, ACP,Protection Branch, Mumbai. 2. According That the to prosecution Rahul following Chhabra is is the doing
factual scenario: complainant business of selling and supplying bearings in the name and style as A to Z Bearing Corporation, having office
..3.........
.. 3 ..
at first floor, Rohit Chambers, Janmabhumi Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001. The In the office of complainant, there are Rahul Chhabra received number of two land line connection having No.2875541 and 2873623. complainant threatening calls from 1/10/2001 to 12/10/2001 from the accused Salim Iqbal Qureshi @ Salim Fruit by fictitious name as John on his office phone and mobile phone, threatening the complainant at the behest of gangster Chhota Shakeel for extortion of Rs.50,00,000/- and for the amount of settled at Rs.5,00,000/- and he asked the complainant to deliver the extortion amount to Raju, his local associate. 3. On 12/10/2001 Raju called the complainant to
deliver the extortion amount near Shagun Hotel at Mumbai Central at about 19 hours. from said Raju, the After receiving the call went to the Anti complainant
Extortion Cell and narrated the fact to the police which was registered vide C.R.No.360/01, u/sec.387 r/w 34 of IPC at M.R.A. Marg police station. 4. Thereafter, further investigation was taken over On the basis
by Anti-Extortion Cell of DCB CID, Mumbai.
..4.........
.. 4 ..
of the complaint, a trap was laid at Mumbai Central near Shagun Hotel where the accused Afzal @ Raju Chocolate Abdul Kadar Supariwala handed and while Mohd.Salim accepting Ali Khan were bag arrested red plastic
containing bundle of papers look like bundle of notes from the complainant as extortion amount. 5. Police prepared seizure panchanama of plastic bundle of papers looked like bundle of the arrested accused. Later on the
bag containing STD bills from
notes and one chit having mobile phone number, diary and accused Mustaque Abdul Rehman Nawab was arrested as his involvement also revealed in the offence. 6. The police, after due investigation, recorded of the witnesses and filed charge Khan, sheet and Afzal @ Raju Chocolate Ali
statements Abdul
against the arrested accused Kadar Supariwala,
Mohd.Salim
Mustaque Abdul Rehman Nawab in the Court of Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai vide C.C.No.724/P/2003. 7. On 21/11/2006, the accused Salim Iqbal Qureshi @
..5.........
.. 5 ..
Salim Fruit, Jamil Haji Abdul Jabbar Shaikh and Mohamed Sabir Suleman were arrested and police seized the two mobiles from these accused under panchnama. course arrested in of investigation, accused are it was of of revealed members activities for During the that the Crime for of it
Organized
Syndicate headed by Chhota Shakeel. continuous to unlawful the extortion businessmen
They are indulging threatening gain pecuniary
members of Organized Crime Syndicate and therefore of MCOC Act, as 1999. per Therefore of police the MCOC obtained Act
attracts the provision of section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) prior Jt. approval sec.23(1) from
Commissioner of Police, (Crime) Branch, Mumbai, vide its order dated 13/12/2006 and accordingly these provisions of MCOC Act added to the original charge. 8. said Thereafter, on 21/11/2006 police arrested the offence and also member of Organized Crime
accused Salim Iqbal Qureshi as he found involved in the Syndicate. sent the The police of DCB CID recovered chit from same hand to handwriting of expert Salim by obtaining Then
the accused Salim Khan during trap under panchnama and specimen writing accused Khan.
..6.........
.. 6 ..
Deputy Salim
Commissioner of accused
of
police,
recorded
confessional Qureshi,
statement
Shahidmiyan
Natthumiyan
Iqbal Qureshi @ Salim Fruit and Jamil Haji Abdul
Jabbar Shaikh. 9. The complainant produced three audio cassette
before the police, then after arrest of the accused, police collected voice sample of the accused in presence of panchas and sent all these cassettes to the Voice Analyzer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Kalina. 10. calls The police also collected details in respect of from mobile phone No.9821294817 from service
provider BPL mobile company. 11. obtained After due investigation, from the and police of of filed DCB CID
sanction the
Commissioner thereafter
Police, charge
Mumbai u/sec.23(2) of MCOC Act 1999, dated 27/2/2007 for prosecuting accused sheet against all the accused in this Court. 12. From the material available on record, the
charges against accused nos.1 and 3 to 7 was framed on
..7.........
.. 7 ..
23/1/2009 vide Ex.8 and the charge against accused no.2 framed office. on 29/3/2010 vide Ex.85 by my predecessor at The charges were read over and explained to the
accused to which they abjured and claimed to be tried. 13. The defence of the accused is of total denial According to them, they are accused to that effect is Plea of the
and of false implication. innocent.
recorded vide Ex.9 to 14 and 86 respectively. 14. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused,
the prosecution has examined in all 15 witnesses and commenced its evidence by examining Rahul Chabra - PW 1, vide Ex.21, Lalu Abdulla Shaikh - PW 2 vide Ex.34, Mohd. Ayub Mohd.Omar Mogul - PW 3 vide Ex.38, Shakil Ismile Patni PW 4 vide Ex.40, Saifuddin Mohsinbhai Kargonwalla - PW 5 vide Ex.41, Anil Ramchandra Avhad API - PW 6 vide Ex.44, Manohar Jagannath Bhoir, DCP - PW 7 vide Ex.48, Jagdish Jagannath Kulkarni, PSI - PW 8 vide Ex.59, Dilip Pralhad Rambhuj Ahiwale DCP PI Prajapati PW PW PW PW 9 10 11 12 vide vide vide vide Ex.64, Ex.68, Ex.80, Ex.99, Vishwasrao Pundalik Narsinh Salve, Nigade,
Rakeshchandra
Venkatrao
..8.........
.. 8 ..
Prashant Shivshankar
Burde - PW 13 vide Ex.109, Anami The prosecution also filed
Narayan Roy - PW 14 vide Ex.124 and Madhukar Bhau Kurne, ACP - PW 15 vide Ex.127. number of documents on record and finally closed its case by filing evidence closure pursis vide Ex.131. 15. The statements of the accused u/sec.313 of
Cr.P.C. were recorded vide Ex.132 to 138 respectively, wherein they reiterated their theory of total denial and of false implication. The accused did not examine themselves on oath, nor they examined any witness in their defence. 16. Heard learned Spl.P.P.Mr.D.M.Shah for the State,
learned Advocate Mr.Pasbola for accused no.1, Ms.Trupti Shetty for accused no.2, Mr.Jagdish Shetty for accused nos.3 to 5 and Ms.Saba Qureshi for accused nos.6 and 7. 17. record points Considering the oral and documentary evidence on and submissions for my of both the sides, and following arise consideration determination
which I have replied accordingly for the reasons given herein below:
..9.........
.. 9 ..
POINTS 1. Does the prosecution prove that the accused nos.1 to 7 and wanted accused Shaikh Shakeel Babu Mohiddin @ Chhota Shakeel and Anwar Mohiddin Shaikh, during the period from 1/10/2001 to 12/10/2001 agreed with each other to do or caused to be done an illegal act, i.e.committing an offence of extortion by threatening various businessmen in Mumbai city for getting huge ransom amount and besides this above agreement, the accused did an act in pursuance of the above agreement i.e. gave threatening calls to the complainant Rahul Chhabra asking him to pay extortion amount of Rs.50,00,000/and threatened to kill him in case if the above demand of extortion was not complied by him and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 120-B,r/w 387 of IPC? 2. Does the prosecution prove that the aforesaid offence of extortion punishable u/sec.387 of IPC amounts to an organized crime as defined in section 2(e) of the MCOC Act 1999 and thereby
FINDINGS
No.
..10.........
.. 10 ..
the aforesaid accused committed an offence u/sec.3(1)(ii) of the MCOC Act, 1999? 3. Does the prosecution prove that the accused nos.1 to 7 conspired together, abetted each other and/or knowingly facilitated the commission of the aforesaid organized crime and/or acts preparatory to the organized crime and thereby committed an offence punishable u/sec.3 (2)of the MCOC Act,1999? 4. Does the prosecution prove that the accused nos.1 to 7 are the members of the organized crime syndicate headed by absconding accused Shaikh Babu @ Chhota Shakeel and thereby committed an offence punishable u/sec.3(4) of MCOC Act, 1999? 5. What order? R E A S O N S POINT NO.1 18. In order to prove the charge
No.
No.
No. As per final order.
under
Sec.387,
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the prosecution

..11.........
.. 11 ..
has examined complainant Rahul Chhabra, who has stated that he is doing business of selling ball bearing of automobile vehicles in the at name of A to Z Bearing Corporation, particularly situated on Rohit at Chambers, about 6.30 Janmabhumi p.m., he
Marg, Fort, Mumbai.
According to him, in the year 2001,
1/10/2001,
received phone call and caller speaking that his name is John and he is speaking for Chhota Shakil. a same call on his land line No.2873623. about that call. from the same person and he demanded He received He has scared Rs.50 lakhs
On the next day he also received call
otherwise threatened to kill him. 19. PW 1 further deposed that thereafter he received calls on his mobile phone bearing no.
threatening
9820098507 and also received threatening call on his new mobile number. line no.2873623. Rs.50/lakhs. Lastly he received a call on his land The caller was John and asked to pay Even the caller reduced the ransom He has further
amount upto Rs.10 lakhs and 5 lakhs.
stated that the caller John, told him that he would send his person viz., Raju to collect the cash amount of Rs. 5/- lakhs from him. He would communicate the place
..12.........
.. 12 ..
where he was supposed to handover the cash of Rs.5/lakhs. 20. to the He has further deposed, thereafter he approached crime and he branch gave office the at Crawford to His PSI Market, on was narrated story Kulkarni.
12/10/2001
Accordingly,
statement.
statement
recorded by PSI Kulkarni.
He has further deposed that
on the very day PI Kulkarni, called him at the crime branch office, at about 3.30 p.m., and asked him to prepare paper packets in the size of currency notes so as to handover were the also said packets by to the Mr.Raju. PSI Two witnesses called Kulkarni.
Accordingly, police party and two witnesses went to the Shagun Hotel at Bombay Central. Complainant stood on the road in front of hotel Shagun at about 6.30 p.m. Thereafter, two persons came there and he told him that he was Raju, the said Raju asked him to handover the packet to another person. his associate Salim Khan. While handing over the packet Police also seized some chits police officers surrounded them and caught hold Raju and and diary from both of the accused under panchanama.
..13.........
.. 13 ..
21. from
From the statement of PW 1 the complainant, it 1/10/2001 and finally he decided to go to the
appears that, he started to receiving threatening calls police. 22. In respect of this evidence of PW-1, it has been by the is Spl.P.P.Mr.Shah, quite believable that and evidence of sufficient
submitted complainant
explanation is given about the telephonic threatening calls received by the complainant, so also about the trap led by the police. 23. evidence of actual Per contra defence advocates have submitted that of PW-1 of is the full of omissions therefore, and such There is some discrepancies in respect complaint,
contradictions.
filing
evidence should not be believed. 24. While perusing the cross-examination of PW-1, it However, while
has been pointed out by the defence that on the FIR Ex. 22 the date is mentioned as 12/10/2001. perusing the statement recorded by the complainant it appears the date 11/10/2001, then again the next date is
..14.........
.. 14 ..
appeared appeared
12/10/2001. statement 12/10/2001 and
Then of the the
while PW-1, third
perusing the date
the is
supplementary
supplementary
statement dated 6/2/2007 is stated that his complaint recorded on 11/10/2001. Such type of different version about the filing of the complaint itself create doubt about the actual filing of the complaint and on which date. Apart from the differences in respect of date, though PW-8 PSI Kulkarni, stated that wrongly the date 11/10/2001 has been mentioned on the statement of the complainant, but his explanation is not acceptable, in view of the repeated statement by PW-1 before Court in respect of his statement recorded on 11/10/2001. 25. Apart from this fact, the defence has pointed In this respect,
out some important facts on record about recording of FIR with the MRA Marg Police Station. while perusing the evidence of PW-1, he has stated in his cross-examination that he did not go to MRA Marg Police Station and no officer of MRA Marg Police Station contacted him. stated that On the contrary, there is evidence of on 12/10/2001 at about 3.30 p.m., PW-6 Anil Avhad, API, MRA Marg Police Station, who has
..15.........
.. 15 ..
complainant Rahul Chhabra was brought in MRA Marg Police Station by PSI Nigade (PW-12) of Anti Extortion Cell for registration of FIR and he registered C.R.No.360/2001. To this, again there is contradictory version came from PW-8 PSI Kulkarni, who stated that he produced the statement of Rahul PW-1 to registration of C.R. MRA Marg Police Station for
Again there is different version
from the mouth of PW-12, PI Nigade, DCB CID, who has stated he did not see the report of complainant Rahul. He denied in cross-examination that he took Rahul to MRA Marg Police Station, for registration of FIR. 26. In view of the four different testimonies in
respect of registration of FIR Ext.22 with the MRA Marg Police Station, it is again create doubt about actually registration basic fact of has the not same on 12/10/2001, established or by its the registration on 11/10/2001. been prosecution. 27. Apart from the above controversy in respect of of FIR and given statement by the In such circumstances, the properly
registration
complainant, while perusing the cross-examination of the
..16.........
.. 16 ..
complainant, I found there are number of omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW-1. complainant in cross-examination stated Such as, that that accused
Raju contacted him thrice asking him to deliver cash amount at Hotel Shagun. The said fact is not found Then PW-1 place in a statement recorded by police.
stated that he was asked by PSI Mr.Kulkarni to prepare packets in the size of currency notes and he carried the same in the office of Anti Extortion Cell. Likewise the fact stated by PW-1 that, Raju and Salim Khan both were apprehended by police, such statement also not found place in the statement of complainant. 28. There is also that omission it was in the by statement him to of the
complainant Jhon's
that,
stated
police that he was threatened that he would be killed by men if he failed to pay him above ransom amount He also not stated about identification He also not stated He also Rs.50/- lakhs.
of John's voice from the cassette.
that, every time John, used to call him on phone and lastly John admitted to accept Rs.5/- lakhs. chit. not stated about mention of mobile number of John, on Such type of omissions goes to the root of the
..17.........
.. 17 ..
case, because police case is based on evidence of PW-1 about the extortion threatening calls. 29. Even PW-1 in the cross-examination stated that, This
he has not stated portion marked 'A' to the police and, therefore, it is not correctly recorded by police. chit the from case, the so accused the nos.5 filing and of 6. and portion mark contained about the seizure of diary and Therefore, giving of considering the major omission which goes to the root of also FIR statement by the complainant variance dates in it, such evidence of the complainant inspires no confidence. 30. In view of the above said fact, let us see what As
is the evidence putforth by the police about the traps allegedly led at Bombay Central, near Shagun Hotel. stated supra, the PW-1 stated that the police called two witnesses at Anti Extortion Cell, he and two witnesses and police personnel went to Shagun Hotel at Bombay Central. taxi. Bombay He has stated that, he went there alone by
Contrary to it PW-2 Panch Lalu Shaikh has stated Central, near Shagun Hotel by private Qualis
that the police, another panch and he himself went to
..18.........
.. 18 ..
vehicle.
Later on in the cross-examination PW-2 stated
that, they went there in jeepsy vehicle. 31. vehicle. So far as this vehicle point is concerned, the There is also difference about the parking of Apart from this fact, the
PW-8 PSI Kulkarni stated that they went there by private vehicle at different places stated by the panch witness PW-2 and PW-8 Mr.Kulkarni. vital admission has been given by the PW-1 in crossexamination he has stated when he came, witnesses and police party reached near Shagun Hotel, they all had a discussion near Shagun Hotel about 15 minutes. Hotel Shagun at Bombay Central. Then, It means in such the police and complainant were together in front of circumstances, it is not possible for the person for whom the trap was there to go near the complainant for demanding the cash. Therefore, the evidence which is full of variance about the trap cannot be accepted. 32. that to Moreover, the fact which is admitted on record PW-2 Lalu Shaikh, on is not very at all independent of PW-2 in
witness, he is a habitual panch to the DCB CID, I come this conclusion the evidence
..19.........
.. 19 ..
cross-examination.
He has admitted that on number of This
occasions he acted as panch with the DCB CID.
witness is appeared to be under the influence of police as he is used to sell handkerchief near the C.P.Office, situated one. at Crawford Market, Mumbai. Therefore, evidence of such witness cannot be accepted as genuine To this fact Mr.Kulkarni PW-8, also admitted that PW-2 acted as a panch in some of the cases of DCB CID. 33. Of course, the PW-2 Lalu Shaikh, PW-1 Rahul and
PW-8 Kulkarni PSI, have stated that at the time of trap the accused nos.5 and 6 were apprehended on the spot. To this fact except the corroboration of themselves such as PW-1 and PW-2 I found that their evidence are not trustworthy, no other independent witnesses examined for the same. Moreover, while perusing the evidence of Lalu CID Office Shaikh PW-2 and PSI Kulkarni PW-8, they have stated that initially panchanama was prepared at DCB Ex.35. prepared later Ex.35(A). there of In is respect another of this He also stated after the trap, panchanama was panchanama, in
particularly after trap panchanama Ex.35(A), I will come because vital discrepancy the respect recovery chit allegedly from accused
..20.........
.. 20 ..
during the trap. evidence narrated of above
It is sufficient to mention that the and not after at trap all by witnesses as and are trustworthy
pre-trap
believable. 34. at About Bombay chit which it is allegedly been recovered out by from the
accused Salim Khan at the time of trap near Shagun Hotel Central, has pointed defence that there is vital discrepancy about the actual seizure of said chit at the trap. Of course, PW-1 the complainant as well as PW-2 panch witness have stated that there was a seizure of one diary and some receipts of STD bills and chit having mobile number on it. Same facts also been stated by PW-8 PSI Kulkarni, in his evidence and on the basis of the said recovery the one of the panchanama, i.e., after trap panchanama was prepared Ex.35(A). While recording the evidence of PW-8 This Ex.25 chit
the chit which was allegedly seized from the accused Salim Khan had been marked as Ex.25. mobile numbers. the time of trap. shows the name of accused Salim Khan as well as two According to prosecution, this is the same chit, which was seized from accused Salim Khan at
..21.........
.. 21 ..
35. Ex.35-A, John
However, while perusing after trap panchanama the two description mobile of said chit If one appears to be the
totally different on this chit it was mentioned name of and numbers. believed evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 in respect of trap or at least in respect of recovery of some chit and diary, more specifically the chit in dispute Ex.25, then the description mentioned in the panchanama Ex.35-A is not tallied with the same. Because Ex.25, which is produced in the Court is not bears the name 'John' and the chit which is produced in the court Ex.25 bears the name 'Salim Bhai'. particularly explanation Therefore, while perusing the evidence the about I.O. the of the previous of case i.e.,
Mr.Kulkarni PSI PW-8, he has not given the satisfactory discrepancies said specific In chit, even PW-1 and PW-2 stick up with their case about recovery of chit having mentioned name John on it. such circumstances and on the basis of total
contradictory fact, it is clearly appears that the Ex. 25, which is produced in the Court a chit having the name of 'Salim bhai' is totally manipulated document. Therefore, this document, i.e., chit which is allegedly
..22.........
.. 22 ..
recovered from the accused Salim is not acceptable and believable. 36. respect On of the chit basis of the the above said of findings PW-9 in
Ex.25,
evidence
Dilip
Ahiwale, a handwriting expert, who has stated that he compared the handwriting of the accused Salim Khan with the chit Ex.25 and issued report Ex.66 and the reason and conclusion is at Ex.67, has no use to the prosecution. 37. Though the I.O.has stated that handwriting
specimen of accused Salim Khan was obtained and the same was sent to handwriting expert PW-9 Dilip Ahiwale, but mere establishing the fact of obtaining handwriting of accused Salim and the handwriting on Ex.25, tallied with the handwriting of accused Salim is not much important in view of finding given supra about the manipulation of the chit by the police on record. 38. Moreover, it is rightly submitted by the defence
advocate that report of the handwriting expert is not the conclusive piece of evidence, it is only supporting
..23.........
.. 23 ..
or corroborative evidence, if other facts established by the prosecution. In this respect Mr.Pasboala is relied In it, it was held by the on the reported case Fakhruddin V/s. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1967 Cri.L.J.1197). Hon'ble Apex Court that, The writing may be proved to be in the handwriting of a particular individual by the evidence of a person familiar with the handwriting of that individual or by the testimony of an Expert competent to the comparison of handwritings on a scientific basis. A third method is comparison by the Court with the writing made in the presence of the Court or admitted or proved to by the writing of the person. Both under Sec.45 and Sec.47 the evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from the frequent observations and experience. In either case the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. Where an expert's opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person. This is not to say that the Court must play the role of an expert but to say that the court may accept the fact proved only
..24.........
.. 24 ..
when it has satisfied itself on its observation that it is safe to accept the opinion whether of the expert or other witness. The Supreme Court in an appeal also is entitle to call for the writings for making a comparison thereof. 39. reported Likewise case Ram Hon'ble Chandra Apex and Court another also V/s. held State in of
Uttar Pradesh (1957 Cri.L.J.559). the Hon'ble Apex Court that,
In it, it was held by
It may be that normally it is not safe to treat expert evidence as to handwriting as sufficient basis for conviction. It may be, however, relied upon along with other various items of external and internal evidence relating to the documents inquestion. 40. From the above said principle laid down by the expert cannot take place of substantive
Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that the opinion of the handwriting evidence. 25 is Moreover particularly in this case, in view manipulation, therefore the handwriting
of the conclusion in the above said para, that chit Ex. clear expert's report Ex.66, is not at all considerable in
..25.........
.. 25 ..
this case in order to establish the allegation of the prosecution that the Ex.25 is the handwriting of accused Salim. 41. In this particular case the prosecution also
relied on the evidence of PW-1, in respect of submission of audio cassette which is allegedly the conversation in between John and complainant was recorded by the complainant with the help of cassette player. 42. PW-1 complainant has stated that on 12/10/2001,
he handed over the three audio cassettes to the police. Same fact has also been stated by PW-8 PSI Kulkarni, who recorded the statement of complainant. of But in respect handing over the said three cassettes, interestingly The PW-1 in the evidence has
no panchanama was prepared about the seizure of the same from the PW-1 by the PW-8. was prepared or not. stated that he does not know whether the said panchanama Apart from this on record no such panchanama putforth by the prosecution. 43. handed Though over it is believed cassettes that the complainant containing
the
three
allegedly
..26.........
.. 26 ..
conversation between him and John.
It is important to
note here that the said cassettes were played down on 6/2/2007, that is just after the gap of six years when the MCOCA provision was applied to the accused and it is though stated by PW-1, he was called by the police at the office of DCB CID and played such a cassette and conversations were recorded in presence of panchas. In this respect there is evidence of PW-12 Nigade PI, DCB CID, he has stated after calling PW-1 the complainant in the office the said cassettes were played and the conversations were recorded as per Ex.102. 44. court During the trial at the time of evidence of PW-1 the said cassettes number were third played was not in open but the cassette played
complainant,
properly, that conversation was not properly heard in the Court. conversation Likewise, in the cassette no.1, there was a in between complainant and his sister, Apart from this fact
which is not useful to the case.
about the said cassettes PW-1 stated that PSI Kulkarni, handed over those cassettes to him, but PSI Kulkarni has stated that, he handed over the said cassettes to PW-12, but as stated supra no panchanama was prepared for
..27.........
.. 27 ..
seizure. that case. 45. sample and the
Even in the chargesheet no such conversation
has appeared to be produced by the IO PI Kulkarni in
Apart from this fact, it is appeared that PI voice of accused of at Salim, vide Ex.101, @ he also vide
Nigade, PW-12, has exercised in respect of recording recorded voice sample of accused the voice sample accused Kalina panchanama Ext.39. voice Laboratory. tallied with Jamil Jabbar Shaikh Afzal Raju,
The said voice samples were sent to Forensic Science
analyzer
The voice samples, which were recorded in the voice/conversation recorded in the
the different cassettes examined by voice analyzer and three cassettes produced by complainant to the police. But there is no conclusive opinion given by the voice analyzer in the report and therefore, the witnesses though listed by the prosecution, i.e., voice analyzer has not been examined. gave threatening Therefore, the alleged recording is not established by the of conversation by the complainant with the person who calls prosecution by the cogent evidence. Hence, the evidence
of PW-1, PW-8 and PW-12 to that effect is not much
..28.........
.. 28 ..
helpful to the prosecution. 46. that Moreover, one important fact also been pointed the voice sample of the complainant was not
out by the defence in the cross-examination of PW-8, recorded either by PW-8 Shri Kulkarni or by PW-12 Shri Nigade. Therefore, without voice sample of complainant for the tally or for establishment of conversation in the audio cassettes the sending of only voice sample of accused referred all in above these which has facts, presence no value. evidence voice Therefore, of PW-3 was sample considering Mohd.Ayub, the the
recorded by PW-12, has no value. 47. filing Therefore, of considering and about the the evidence trap. of PW-1,
which is full of omissions and contradictions about the complaint Likewise, evidence of PW-2, about pre-trap and particularly after trap then manipulation of chit Ex.25 having the name of accused Salim and lacuna in the evidence of about the identification has failed to of voice conversation the fact in that the there audio was cassettes submitted by the complainant. establish The prosecution
..29.........
.. 29 ..
threatening call given by the accused for the extortion of amount initially Rs.50/- lakhs, then Rs.10/- lakhs and finally Rs.5/- lakhs. 48. So far as allegation of the prosecution against
the accused about the formation of criminal conspiracy punishable under Sec.120-B of IPC is concerned, except the above said evidence, so also except the confession available on record of accused no.1 Salim, accused no.2 Jamil and No.4 Shahidmiyan, no other evidence putforth on record to establish such criminal conspiracy. Of course, I have to consider confessional statement of the said accused recorded independently by three witnesses, I will consider this evidence later on. But it is sufficient to mention that the prosecution has failed to establish the common object of the accused in order to extort money from the under complainant the pretext by of giving gang the threatening calls leader
Chhota Shakeel. 49. no.1 Now let us consider the evidence of prosecution Salim, accused no.2 Jamil and accused no.4
about the recording of confessional statement of accused
..30.........
.. 30 ..
Shahidmiyan.
Let us see the confession of said accused
one by one and evidence in support of the same. 50. accused order The prosecution has examined PW-7 Manohar Bhoir, no.4 to Shahidmiyan, the he has stated of that on no.4
DCP, in order to prove the confessional statement of 26/12/2006, he received a letter from Jt.C.P., Ex.49, in record confession accused Shahidmiyan. In turn he wrote a letter (Ext.50) to ACP On the same day then he
for production of said accused. of accused with PSI Dhumal. 51.
received a letter Ext.51 from ACP about the production
According to PW-7 Bhoir, PSI Dhumal of MRA Marg Then according to him, he on Ex.52 he obtained
Police Station, produced accused no.4 for recording his confession at his office. putting the formal recorded part-I Ex.52 of accused Shahidmiyan, then after question signature of accused no.4 and he also put his signature. 52. Ext.53 Then he handed over accused no.4 to PI Kadam of and directed to produce the accused on
MRA Marg Police Station, for reflection vide his letter
..31.........
.. 31 ..
28/12/2006. Shahidmiyan II, Ex.52-A
Accordingly, and and then then
PI
Kadam the put
produced
accused he
after finally
formal up his
question
recorded the confessional statement of him, i.e., partcertificate about voluntariness, which is at Ex.52-B and later on sent the accused and confessional statement to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, vide his letter Ex.54. 53. In respect of his confession and its value and
what procedure has to be followed while recording the same, it has been vehemently submitted by Mr.Pasbola advocate for the accused no.1 and Mr.Jagdish Shetty for accused no.3 to 5 that such evidence particularly PW-7, PW-10 and PW-13 shows that they have not followed the procedure laid down under Sec.18 of the MCOC Act and Rule thereunder and also not followed the guidelines laid down in Kartar Singh V/s State of Punjab ([1994] 3 Supreme said Court Cases are 569). at all Therefore, genuine or they have vehemently submitted that the confession recorded above witnesses not voluntary confession of the accused nos.1, 2 and 4. They have further submitted that the said confessional statement has not been corroborated by any of the prosecution
..32.........
.. 32 ..
witness.
Therefore, as a rule of prudence
certain
corroboration is necessary, particularly on the backdrop of the evidence of PW-7, PW-10 and PW-13 about the same, on the basis of the said confession no conviction can be based. 54. The learned defence Counsel also relied on the
following reported cases in respect of acceptance of confession. 1. 2. State of Rajasthan V/s. Ajit Singh and Others ([2008] 1 Supreme Court Cases [Cri] 287). State (NCT of Delhi) V/s. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005 Supreme Court Cases [Cri] 1715). State of Maharashtra V/s. Siraj Ahmed Nisar Ahmed & Others ([2007] 2 Supreme Court Cases [Cri] 472). Bharatbhai @ Jimi Premchandbhai V/s. State of Gujarat (2003 ALL MR [Cri] 164 [SC]). Per contra Shri Shah learned SPP has vehemently
3.
4.
55.
submitted that in the evidence of PW-7 PW-10 and PW-13, they have specifically stated that accused nos.1, 2 and
..33.........
.. 33 ..
4 have voluntarily confessed about their guilt and they have properly recorded the same by following due procedure laid down under Sec.18 of the MCOC Act and Rule thereunder. Therefore, he has submitted that mere He has prime certain omission in the procedure will not sufficient to disbelieve the version of responsible officer. submitted that the confessional statement of
accused coupled with the corroborative statement of coaccused prosecution established the criminal conspiracy hatched by all the accused for extortion of money from the complainant. As such, he has submitted that, accused be convicted. 56. Apex In Kartar Singh's case cited supra the Hon'ble Court has laid down certain guidelines for the confession of the accused. 1999 in the legislature and the On the basis all the for
recording MCOC Act,
of the said guidelines it is clear that while enacting incorporated rule guidelines Sec.18 thereunder
recording confession by the Dy.SP. 57. On the basis of the above said guidelines and
specific provision of Sec.18 and Rule under MCOC Act, I
..34.........
.. 34 ..
have to minutely scrutinize the evidence of PW-7, PW-10 and PW-13. 58. Then while testing the evidence of PW-7 Manohar
Bhoir DCP, with provision of Sec.18 and Rule thereunder for recording confession, the Prosecution though stated that evidence of DCP PW-7 states that all the procedures have been followed and this fact also been stated by PW-7 in his evidence in the Court. the police them officer the and But apart from the of letter stage in of formal letters and production of accused before PW-7 by communication part is between vital principal
recording statement of accused, i.e., part-I and part-II of the confession. 59. In respect such of following of the procedure no.4, of
recording
confession
accused
while
perusing the cross-examination of PW-7, he has stated and specifically admitted that he has not stated to the accused that he is authorized to record the confession. He also mentioned in the part-I Ext.52 that, he would not be handover the custody to DCB CID, even though accused refused to give the statement. He also not
..35.........
.. 35 ..
asked the question to the accused about any receiving of threat, inducement, promised to be specific in para 12 of his cross-examination. He has stated that he has not mentioned the fact about asking such question in his part-I and part-II Ex.52 and 52-A. 60. The most important fact is missing in the
confessional statement, i.e., Part-I and part-II that he has not intimated to the accused that the confession if any made by but him that would be for used the against him as evidence. evidence, Though he has stated this fact in the oral unfortunately prosecution this
fact did not find place either in part-I and part-II of the confession. This is the major defect in recording confession by PW-7, because by not asking such question to the accused or not intimating the accused about the same is clear violation of provision Sec.18 and Rule framed under the MCOC Act. 61. Therefore, there is a doubt that whether such
confession given by the accused Shahidmiyan is voluntary or not and if the prosecution failed to establish the confession is voluntary, then such confession can not be
..36.........
.. 36 ..
used as evidence against the accused himself or against the co-accused. 62. Here one important fact is to be noted after part-I Ex.52, interestingly Admittedly the custody of
recording
accused no.4 Shahidmiyan was handed over to PSI Kadam, MRA Marg Police Station. FIR was registered with the MRA Marg Police Station, and therefore, if a custody of accused handed over to such police station certainly there is possibility of influence and threat by such police on accused during the reflection period. This basic fact has not been considered by PW-7 while recording the confession. More important fact is also pointed out in the cross-examination by the defence that the PW-7 has not asked any question to the accused that whether during the reflection period any police officer contacted him. Therefore, all the fact brought in the cross-examination of PW-7 clearly indicates that all the basic procedure has been lacking while recording the confession used of this the particular and accused also Shahidmiyan. the coTherefore, such confession is not reliable and cannot be against accused against accused.
..37.........
.. 37 ..
63. the
The one another important fact is pointed out by defence that the PW-7 has given certificate in
regard to voluntariness of accused on a separate sheet and this is one another violation of rule for recording the confession. 64. Therefore, on the basis of fact narrated above,
the evidence of PW-7 is not trustworthy in order to find that the accused no.4 gave his confessional statement voluntarily to him and he recorded the same vide Ex.52 and 52-A. 65. Now let us turn towards the confessional In order
statement of accused no.1 Salim Iqbal Qureshi.
to establish the confessional statement recorded of this accused the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW-10 Shri Vishwasrao Salve DCP, he has deposed that he received Ex.69 direction from Jt.C.P., for recording confession of this accused. Then he wrote a letter Ex.
70 to D.C.P., for production of accused and vide Ex.71 accused no.1 was produced on 25/12/2006. 66. He has further stated that on 27/12/2006 accused
..38.........
.. 38 ..
Salim
was
produced giving
before the
him
and
after
putting
the He his said of But
formal question for gathering the voluntariness of the accused recorded narration witness for the confessional of accused On the statement. no.1 basis as of per the confession Ext.72-A. the
vide has
examination-in-chief the prosecution has submitted this recorded confessional statement accused Salim, who gave voluntarily confession.
while perusing the cross-examination of PW-10 he also replied identically as replied by PW-7 Mr.Manohar Bhoir DCP. 67. Apart from the procedural lacuna in recording
the confessional statement and which come out in the cross-examination of PW-10, the one important fact has been pointed out by the defence in the cross-examination of PW-10 that on part-I Ex.72, the date is mentioned below the signature of PW-10 in English dated 27/12/2006, as well as below the signature of accused Salim dated 27/12/2006. accused Salim The same signature of PW-10 and the date 27/12/2006 also It means from these two alongwith
appeared on part-II Ex.72-A.
parts, i.e., part-I and part-II, it is pointed out that
..39.........
.. 39 ..
on the very day on 27/12/2006, part-I and part-II were recorded by PW-10 Shri Salve. to the accused Salim after From this fact it is the part-I and clear that no reflection period was given by the PW-10 recording giving such reflection period is mandatory as per Rule 3 Sub Rule 4 of the MCOC Rules 1999. at all legal confession. 68. Of course PW-10 Shri Salve was called by my Therefore, such confession recorded by the PW-10 of accused Salim is not
predecessor at the time of deciding bail application of the accused, that time he produced the document, i.e., part-I, which is marked during trial Ex.79. In this Ex. 79 there is a signature of Shri Salve in Marathi script and bears date 25/12/2006, contrary to it on Ex.72 and Ex.72-A, which bear date 27/12/2006 bears a signature of Shri Salve PW 10 in English. Therefore, it appears that this was another attempt of police to hide their misdeed in respect of recording confession of accused no.1 Salim Qureshi. accused therein. As and such other a confession on which name police is heavily relying cannot be acceptable for conviction of co-accused whose mentioned
..40.........
.. 40 ..
69. accused
Now, no.2
turn
to
the In
confessional order to
statement establish
of the
Jamil.
confessional statement of accused no.2, prosecution has examined PW-13 Shri Prashant Burde, DIG, initially in his evidence he has stated that, he received a letter from Jt.C.P., Crime, Mumbai, on 23/12/2006, for recording confession of accused Jamil Shaikh, in C.R.no. 84/01 of DCB CID Ex.110. He also stated that, he issued Then PSI a letter Ex.111 to ACP Kurne, for production of said accused on 26/12/2006, at about 11.30 a.m. Ex.112. 70. Ex.113, accused He has further stated that after putting formal then for later on handed with over the custody of said and Dhumal, produced the said accused alongwith the letter
question to the accused Jamil Shaikh, he prepared part-I reflection letter Ex.114
directed the police to reproduce the accused Jamil on 27/12/2006 vide letter Ex.116. Accordingly, he made According to him on entry in station diary vide Ex.117. about 2.40 p.m.
27/12/2006, accused Jamil was produced before him at Then after putting necessary question
..41.........
.. 41 ..
and getting information from accused Jamil he recorded confessional police accused vide statement his of accused Ex.120 to Jamil vide Ex.118. said Then issued certificate Ex.119 and finally asked the letter produce the before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay,
alongwith envelope containing confessional statement. 71. While perusing cross-examination of this witness
PW-13, he also committed the same mistake about checking voluntariness of the accused for giving the confessional statement. getting He has not put up the necessary question and answer from the accused before necessary
recording confession, in order to verify the fact that the accused giving statement without any threat or under influence by police or anybody. He specifically admitted that he did not inform the accused that if he would not make confession, he would not be sent the custody of I.O. Even, he has stated that no medical Even, it is not He also not papers about examination of accused was produced and he has not made inquiry about the same. his confession under the MCOC Act. disclosed to the accused that he has empower to record disclosed to the accused that the confession if recorded
..42.........
.. 42 ..
would be used against him and also against co-accused as evidence. Such basic question for declaring the confession voluntarily has not been putforth by this witness to the accused, therefore, such confession also cannot be held as genuine and voluntarily made by the accused Jamil. 72. Here one important fact also been pointed out by that all the accused, who allegedly gave
the defence particularly Shri Pasbola and Shri Shetty, advocate, confessional statement as immediately retracted before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, when they produced before the respective officers. While perusing the reports of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, in respect of all the three accused, i.e., accused no.1, 2 and 4, they have reported that all the three accused retracted from their statements allegedly given before PW-7, PW-10 and PW-13. 73. In short, in view of the such retracted
confessional statements of accused nos.1, 2 and 4 and also in view of the finding given supra about that such confession are not voluntarily recorded by DCP and DIG.
..43.........
.. 43 ..
Then as a rule of prudence, particularly in this case certain corroboration is must in order to establish the guilt against the accused in such serious cases. 74. In respect of confession, while perusing the
observation laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in reported case State of State of Rajasthan V/s. Ajit Singh cited supra it was held that, The non compliance of Rule with Sec.(5) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules 1987, such confession could not be, therefore, be taken into consideration for any purpose.
75.
The identical observation has been laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V/s. Siraj Ahmed Nisar Ahmed & Others, case cited supra that, Under the TADA Act, considerable amount of confidence has been reposed on the senior police officials for recording the confessional statement. A confessional statement to police is not admissible under the general law connected with administration of criminal justice, which is made admissible
..44.........
.. 44 ..
under the TADA Act, and, therefore, strict compliance with the procedure prescribed under Sec.15 of the TADA Act read with Rule 15 of the TADA Rules is expected to be followed. Any confession made in defiance of the safeguards provided therein, would not be relied upon by a court.
76.
The identical observation also been laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in State (NCT of Delhi) V/s. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru and Bharatbhai @ Jimi Premchandbhai V/s. State of Gujarat, cited supra. 77. Like provision laid down in TADA Act, similar is also been incorporated Sec.18 of in the respect MCOC of Act. confession under
provision recording
Precautionary rule have been framed, i.e., Rule-3 sub rule thereunder in the MCOC Rules 1999. Therefore, the above said observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, though laid down in the TADA cases are clearly applicable in the cases under the MCOC Act, in respect of confessions recorded by the police officials. 78. On the backdrop of basic principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court and precautionary measures for

..45.........
.. 45 ..
recording
confession
of
the
accused,
so
also
the
provisions of Sec.18 and Rule-3 of the MCOC Rules and on the basis of the evidence discussed above, I have no hesitation to hold that all the confessional statements of accused nos.1, 2 and 4, are not at all voluntary one. Therefore, confessions confessional no for reliance conviction as can of be placed who as such on these the accused, gave
statements
well
confession
cannot be used as a piece of evidence against the coaccused in this case. 79. Therefore, though the prosecution come with the
case of criminal conspiracy hatched between the above said accused and wanted accused Chhota Shakil and Anwar Shaikh, but there is lacuna in the evidence to establish such conspiracy. Interestingly neither PW-8 Kulkarni, PW-12 Nigade and PW-15 Shri Kurane has stated a single line in their respective evidence that there was such a conspiracy in between all the accused to extort money from complainant or others, such as PW-4 and PW-5. 80. So far as allegation of extortion against the
accused from PW-1 is concerned, I already held supra the
..46.........
.. 46 ..
evidence of PW-1.
Other witnesses PW-2 and PW-8 are not
sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused even the alleged trap has not been proved by the prosecution on the backdrop of manipulation of chit Ex.25 and noncompliance statement. 81. Of course the prosecution Nodal Officer examined of BPL PW-11 Mobile of provision in recording of confessional
Rakeshchandra
Prajapati,
Communication Ltd., it is sufficient to say in single line that this witness is not the person who taken out printout Ex.81, and, therefore, Ex.81 is not properly proved by the prosecution. Though the document exhibited during the course of trial the contents is required to be proved by the prosecution with sufficient material and connected witnesses and not from any other witnesses. Therefore, such testimony of PW-11 is not sufficient to establish the contents of the printout of Ex.81. 82. Of course, the PW-12, PI Nigade, has stated that
he has arrested accused Salim Fruit, Jamil and Sabir Shaikh and recovered two mobile handsets from them and
..47.........
.. 47 ..
prepared arrest panchanama Ex.100. of above said fact and the
But on the backdrop arrived, the
conclusion
evidence of PW-12 about mere arrest of accused no.1, 2 and 3 is not sufficient. 83. On the basis of the evidence stated supra the
prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Secs.387, 120-B r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, I answer the point no.1 in the negative. POINTS NO.2 TO 4 84. these In respect of application of MCOC provisions to accused advocates have Mr.Pasbola, Ms.Shetty that and the Shetty vehemently submitted
Mr.Jagdish
provision of MCOC Act, not at all applicable to this case on the backdrop of failure of the prosecution to establish the offences punishable under section of the Indian Penal Code. 85. There They was have also submitted of that the sanction the
accorded by PW-14 Shri Anami Roy, is mechanical one. non application mind, therefore,
..48.........
.. 48 ..
evidence of PW-14, likewise evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 for establishing the provisions of MCOC Act, are not believable. In order to support their contention for non-application of provisions of MCOC Act, they have relied on the following reported cases: 1. 2. 3. Madan Ramkisan Gangwani V/s. State Maharashtra, (2009 ALL MR [Cri] 1447). Prafulla Uddhav Shende V/s. State Maharashtra, (2009 ALL MR [Cri] 870). of of
Criminal Appeal no.265 of 2010 in between Nazeem Ahmed Wahid Ahmed Khan @ Raju V/s. State of Maharashtra decided on 23/11/2010 by Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
86. and
The prosecution in order to prove the sanction also the that application after of mind of for the giving report the from
sanction by the PW-14 examined Shri Anami Roy, who has deposed receiving investigating officer ACP Kurne, about crime no.84/01 DCB CID, he perused the same and accorded the sanction for prosecution against the accused under sec.23(2) of the MCOC Act, vide Ex.125. He has stated that he has
..49.........
.. 49 ..
perused all the papers of investigation for according sanction under Sec.23(2) of the MCOC Act. But important fact is admitted by him in the cross-examination that when he accorded sanction the report of CFSL regarding Voice Spectrum Analysis was not received. evidence was not before C.P. PW-14. In short, investigation paper was sent by IO Shri Kurne, the main Because by that time it was not established about the connection of the arrest of the accused except accused no.5 and 6, who were allegedly arrested during the trap. 87. and Apart from this fact, though the prior approval which was proved by PW-15 Shri Kurne, for
under Sec.23(1) of the MCOC Act, vide Ex.138 was there application of MCOC provision. But sanction under Sec.
23 sub-clause (2) is just necessary and for giving the same there should be application of mind on the part of the person who accorded the same. In order to establish the organized crime syndicate or whether the accused are the members of the syndicate at least some prima facie evidence is required for according the sanction by C.P. In this particular case, except the retracted confession of accused nos.1, 2 and 4 and except two chargesheets
..50.........
.. 50 ..
filed against wanted accused Chhota Shakeel, Ex.129 and 130, no other material were placed before the PW-14. Therefore, it is clear that none of the accused except accused Chhotal Shakeel were prosecuted previously or chargesheeted in respect of any of the offence of any of the police station within Mumbai jurisdiction. Even in the previous chargesheet in this particular case filed by Shri Kulkarni, wanted accused Chhota Shakeel was not shown as accused, therefore, in such circumstances, the material placed before the PW-14 was not sufficient to accord the sanction, till then such sanction has been accorded. Therefore, though it is open to the prosecution to establish that proper sanction has been accorded by C.P., under Sec.23 sub-clause (2) of the MCOC Act, during the trial, but on the basis of evidence stated supra, I come to the conclusion even the sanction accorded by PW-14 was a clear non application of mind. 88. For application of provision of MCOC Act, our
Hon'ble High Court has laid down certain guidelines in Madan Gangwani case cited supra it was held that, In order to constitute organised crime, the crimes committed prior to coming into force
..51.........
.. 51 ..
of MCOCA, can only provide a background and cannot in themselves constitute organised crime. It has further held that, For establishing organised crime the proof of each ingredients in the definitions laid down under Sec.2 and 3 of the MCOC Act or the alternative thereof provided by such definitions would have to be proved.
89.
In short Hon'ble Parent High Court has laid down
a basic principle that each and every ingredients laid down under Secs.2 and 3 in the definition of organized crime and continuation of crime must be established. 90. In this particular case, in order to application
of provisions of MCOC Act, the prosecution has come with the case that the accused are members of organized crime syndicate headed by wanted accused Chhota Shakeel, but none of the evidence produced on record to establish such a fact except the confessional statement of accused nos.1, 2 and 4, which I have held are not genuine document and such statements are not voluntarily made by
..52.........
.. 52 ..
the accused. 91. Therefore, now remains only evidence of PW-4 and PW-4 Shakil Patni, has been turned hostile and not
PW-5 for showing alleged continuation of crime by the organized crime syndicate. prosecution this witness examined by the prosecution, but unfortunately for the supported the prosecution case saying that he has not received the threatening calls from the gangster Chhota Shakeel. SPP of The detail cross-examination has been held by this witness PW-4, but nothing come out to
support the prosecution. 92. Now remains he has the evidence that the of PW-5 he Saifuddin Rs.10/and he who
Khargonwala, also gave
stated to
the same in
gave
lakhs to the caller, who disclosed his name as John and Rs.5/accused lakhs no.5 caller the identified Afzal court,
allegedly received the said ransom Rs.10/- lakhs and 5/lakhs in the month of October, 2001. 93. Here one fact should be noted that this witness
was called by the DCB CID in the year 2006, it means
..53.........
.. 53 ..
just after the six years of the alleged incident of handing over of the ransom to the accused no.5. During the cross-examination he has admitted that accused no.5 was pointed out to him by the investigating officer Shri Kurane, in the police station. occasion to see accused no.5. collected Interestingly, after Even he has stated he 2001 till 2006, when his statement recorded he has no that amount Rs.10/- lakhs from his relative
Tahir Hussein, but again prosecution has not established the fact about receiving of the said amount by PW-5, and handed over to accused no.5. 94. Apart from these above facts, the prosecution
has not established the case in which manner they came to know that PW-5 also received such threatening calls from John. the accused particularly accused no.5 and from Therefore, on the backdrop of above said evidence
and lacuna in the prosecution case, I am not inclined to believe on the evidence of PW-5 who allegedly handed over the ransom Rs.10/- lakhs and Rs.5/- lakhs twice to accused no.5 Afzal @ Raju. Therefore, by looking all angles, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused are the members of organized crime syndicate
..54.........
.. 54 ..
headed by Chhota Shakeel and their criminal activities are continued. The prosecution has also not established Therefore, I answer that the accused threatened to the complainant by giving calls again and again for ransom. above points no.2 to 4 are in the negative. 95. To sum up prosecution failed to establish
allegation against the accused punishable under Secs. 387, 120-B r/w.34 of the IPC and Sec.3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999. deserves to be acquitted, Therefore, all the accused with this conclusion, I
proceed to pass the following order: O R D E R 1. The accused no.1 Salim Iqbal Qureshi @ Salim Fruit, no.2 Jamil Haji Abdul Jabbar Shaikh, no.3 Mohd. Abdul Sabir Kadar Suleman Shaikh, no.6 no.4 Shahidmiyan Alim Natthumiyan Qureshi, no.5 Afzal @ Raju Chocolate Supariwala, Mohd.Salim Khan and no.7 Mushtaque Abdul Rehman Nawab are hereby acquitted u/sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., of the offences punishable u/secs.120B, 387 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/sec.3(1)(ii), 3(2)
..55.........
.. 55 ..
and
3(4)
of
Maharashtra
Control
of
Organised
Crime Act 1999. 2. 3. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Unmarked Muddemal, i.e., two mobile handsets one make of Nokia Company with battery and another make of Samsung company be forfeited to the State Government and it be sold in auction and sale proceed be credited to the Government of Maharashtra. 4. Muddemal Art.1 colly., grey colour bag, paper slips of the size of currency notes, Arts.no.2, 3 and 4 Cassettes, Art.5 polythene bag, wrapper alongwith label, Art.no.6 label with signature of panchas on cassettes and Unmarked articles Six cassettes and one small cassette and all unmarked wrapper and label being worthless be destroyed after the period of one year under para 73(d) of Criminal Manual 5. In respect of wanted accused namely, Shaikh
..56.........
.. 56 ..
Shakeel Babu Mohiddin Shaikh @ Chhota Shakeel and Anwar Mohiddin Shaikh, the investigating officer is directed to file separate chargesheet whenever they found.
Date: 24/1/2011 1. 2. 3. 4. Date of dictation Date of transcription Date of Signing Delivered to certified copy section on
(S.T.MAHAJAN) Special Judge under MCOC Act :24.01.2011 :08.02.2011 :09.02.2011 :
-// True Copy //(S.T.MAHAJAN) Special Judge under MCOC Act
...........

Chhota Shakeel Gang MCOCA Court Judgement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chhota Shakeel Gang MCOCA Court Judgement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

.. 1 ..

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. The accused nos.1 to 7 are charge sheeted by DCB

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

by Anti-Extortion Cell of DCB CID, Mumbai.

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

bag containing STD bills from

against the arrested accused Kadar Supariwala,

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

Syndicate headed by Chhota Shakeel. continuous to unlawful the extortion businessmen

They are indulging threatening gain pecuniary

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

Iqbal Qureshi @ Salim Fruit and Jamil Haji Abdul

Jabbar Shaikh. 9. The complainant produced three audio cassette

charges against accused nos.1 and 3 to 7 was framed on

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

and of false implication. innocent.

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

Burde - PW 13 vide Ex.109, Anami The prosecution also filed

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

No. As per final order.

120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the prosecution

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

Marg, Fort, Mumbai.

According to him, in the year 2001,

On the next day he also received call

amount upto Rs.10 lakhs and 5 lakhs.

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

recorded by PSI Kulkarni.

He has further deposed that

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

12/10/2001. statement 12/10/2001 and

Then of the the

while PW-1, third

perusing the date

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

Again there is different version

complainant, while perusing the cross-examination of the

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

of John's voice from the cassette.

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

that the police, another panch and he himself went to

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

Later on in the cross-examination PW-2 stated

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

He has admitted that on number of This

occasions he acted as panch with the DCB CID.

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

during the trap. evidence narrated of above

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

35. Ex.35-A, John

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

Uttar Pradesh (1957 Cri.L.J.559). the Hon'ble Apex Court that,

In it, it was held by

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

MCOC Spl.Case No.05/2007

conversation between him and John.

which is not useful to the case.