There is no society that is not confronted with the problem of criminality. Crime is eternal- as society itself. A crime is a universal phenomenon, and of primary concern to every member of human society. The concept of crime has undergone radical changes; it has, today, become multi-faceted, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Today, the norms of society have been revolutionized and sociocultural patterns of society have created many complex situations with society failing to keep up with the changing patterns of behaviour of individuals or groups. During modern times the cases of organized crimes increased. In this article, we shall study what is meant by organized crime. In this article, we shall get brief idea of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999.

Organized crime is defined as “those involved, normally working with others, in continuing serious criminal activities for a substantial profit, elsewhere”. The organized crime involves extortion, collection of protection money from rich businessmen, contract killing, kidnapping, film financing, human trafficking, human organ trafficking, drug trafficking, narcotics trafficking, smuggling and illicit trade in Arms and Ammunition.

Characteristics of Organized crime:

• They act like enterprise (corporate) and has a corporate structure and shows continuity.
• There is a professional relationship between the members.
• There is a division of labour among members based on their skills.
• They maintain the secrecy of the organization, its operations, and its membership. (Omerta).
• For members, the organization comes before themselves and their family members. (loyalty).
• Members respect each other the most, behave honestly with each other, and never harm each other in any way. (Respect).
• Members carry out orders without asking any question or without showing any grievance. (discipline)
• The members are obliged to each other and provides reciprocal services to each other.
• They take advantage of the loopholes of law enforcement agencies.
• There is a secret but solid network among the members.
• The members work like professionals whose duties and responsibilities are predefined.
• The prime motive of organized crime is to obtain monopoly, money, and power.
• They use fear and corruption to achieve their goals.

Causes for Organized Crime:

• The tendency to obtain wealth and status at a fast rate.
• The tendency to obtain power by illegitimate means.
• The tendency to obtain monopolistic control to monitor prices
• The tendency to eliminate competition.
• Equal opportunities not available in society
• The belief in groups and minorities that they are excluded in society.
• The belief that legitimate methods cannot help to get wealth, status, and power easily.

The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999:

The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999 was enacted as an ordinance on Feb 1999 due to the series of insurgencies and disturbances in the state of Maharashtra back then as both the houses of State Legislature were not in session. It became law under the procedure of Article 245 of the Indian Constitution which replaced the temporary Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Ordinance of 1999.  Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh have special law in place dealing with organized crimes.

The Act clearly specifies that it shall have retrospective effect and deemed to have come into force from such date itself. Moreover, the Act got the assent of the President on 23^rd April 1999 and was first published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on 24^th April 1999.

Object & Purpose ofThe Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999:

• To make special provisions for prevention and control of, and for coping with, criminal activity by organized crime syndicate or gang;
• To replace the 1999 Ordinance by an Act of the State Legislature for effective implementation and proper adjudication of the offences thereby;
• A stringent Ac t was necessary due to following reasons:
• As Organised Crimes knows no national boundaries and is fueled by illegal wealth generated by contract, killing, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics kidnappings for ransom, collection of protection money and money laundering, etc which required a special law to deal with such increasing mal practices;
• The possibility of organised crime being operating in the State which was fostering narco-terrorism and aiding the terrorist gangs by illegal funding of wealth and black money, required immediate State action for which the Ordinance to this effect which was replaced by the full-fledged Act was needed.

Salient Features of The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999:

The following are the salient features of MCOCA:

1. The Act provides for the establishment of Special Courts for the purpose of effective adjudication of cases pertaining to Organised Crime and Terrorism.
2. Provides for the appointment of Competent Authority for the purpose of interception of wires, and medium of electronic or oral communication. [Section 13-14]
3. Constitution of Review Committee to review every order of Competent Authority in relation to authorisation of interception etc. [Section- 15].
4. Special rules of evidence to apply in the cases tried by Special Court under MCOCA wherein the CrPC and Evidence Act’s applicability is restricted. [Section-17]
5. Confession recorded by a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police shall be admissible in the trial of such person, co-accused, abettor or conspirator. [Section- 18]
6. Specified provisions for the protection of witnesses of the offences under this Act. [Section- 19]
7. Provisions for forfeiture and attachment of property of the accused and which is specified in the order by the Special Court. [Section-20]
8. Section 438 not to apply under this Act and the words ‘15 days’ and ‘60 days’ shall be construed as ‘30 days’ and ‘90 days’, respectively u/s. 167 CrPC. [Section- 21]
9. Every Offence committed under this Act shall be a cognizable offence. [Section- 21]
10. Special powers of High Court and State Government to make rules u/s. 28 and 29 of the Act.
11. Extreme difficult provisions for securing bail.
12. Causation of Annual Reports of Interceptions by State Government with the particulars as provided u/s. 27 of MCOCA, etc.

Definition of Organized Crime Under The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999:

Section 2(i) (e) of The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (1999) defines that organized crime means any continuing illegal activity by an individual singly or jointly either as a member of Organized crime or on behalf, such syndicates, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary or other undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency.

The definition does not include a political motive. The phrase “continuing illegal activity” means more than one charge-sheet should have been filed against the suspect in proceeding 10 years and cognizance had been taken. Only then the case may be investigated under MCOCA against such accused (section 2 (1) (d) of MCOCA). The phrase “other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency” has ambiguity in it.

Section 2(f) defines ‘Organised Crime Syndicate’ which means “a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime”

Section 2(d) ‘continuing unlawful activity’ means “an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence”.

‘Continuing unlawful activity’ is a prerequisite condition to establish the offence of organized crime.

Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing v. State of Maharashtra, 7 April, 2005

In Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing v. State of Maharashtra, 7 April, 2005 case, the Apex Court had considered what amounts to other unlawful means in Section 2(1)(e) of MCOC Act. The learned Single Judge of this Court had held as under:

• It is thus clear that the general words must ordinarily bear their natural and larger meaning and need not be confined to ejusdem generis to things previously enumerated unless the language of the statute spells out an intention to that effect. …” “
• The specific enumeration in section 2(1)(e) are “use of violence, threat of violence, intimidation, coercion” and the general words “other unlawful means”. There is no difficulty in understanding what is meant by “violence”, “use of violence” or “threat of violence”. But on the basis of this enumeration, it is clear that they are contiguous to the class to which they all belong. All these enumerations are in relation to bringing about pecuniary benefits or undue advantages by actual or threatened pressures being applied to individuals. …”   Having regard to the definitions of words “coercion” in the Contract Act and “intimidation” in IPC, when we take close look at the language of section 2(1)(e), one finds that the general words viz. “other unlawful means” were intended to receive their wide meaning and were not to be construed in a limited sense with the aid of ejusdem generis rule, more particularly when we read those words in the light of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of MCOCA. … It is thus clear that the expression “other unlawful means” as occur in section 2(1)(e) of MCOCA, which defines “organised crime” must be given their natural wide meaning to cover each and every kind of unlawful activity referred to in the Statement of Objects and are not to be construed in a limited sense with the aid of “ejusdem generis” rule so as to defeat the object of the Act.”  While considering the same aspect, the Apex Court held that the words “unlawful means” cannot be so widely construed as to include “any unlawful means”.

The Court further observed that:

• Interpretation clauses contained in Sections 2(d), 2(e) and 2(f) are inter-related. An ‘organised crime syndicate’ refers to an ‘organised crime’ which in turn refers to ‘continuing unlawful activity’. As at present advised, it may not be necessary for us to consider as to whether the words “or other lawful means” contained in Section 2(e) should be read “ejusdem generis”/”noscitur-a-socils” with the words (i) violence, (ii) threat of violence, (iii) intimidation or (iv) coercion. We may, however, notice that the word ‘violence’ has been used only in Sections 146 and 153A of the Indian Penal Code. The word ‘intimidation’ alone has not been used therein but only Section 506 occurring in Chapter XXII thereof refers to ‘criminal intimidation’. The word ‘coercion’ finds place only in the Contract Act. If the words ‘unlawful means’ is to be widely construed as including any or other unlawful means, having regard to the provisions contained in Sections 400, 401 and 413 of the IPC relating to commission of offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust, the provisions of the said Act can be applied, which prima facie, does not appear to have been intended by the Parliament.” “
• The Statement of Objects and Reasons clearly state as to why the said Act had to be enacted. Thus, it will be safe to presume that the expression ‘any unlawful means’ must refer to any such act which has a direct nexus with the commission of a crime which MCOCA seeks to prevent or control. In other words, an offence falling within the definition of organised crime and committed by an organised crime syndicate is the offence contemplated by the Statement of Objects and Reasons. There are offences and offences under the Indian Penal Code and other penal statutes providing for punishment of three years or more and in relation to such offences more than one chargesheet may be filed. As we have indicated hereinbefore, only because a person cheats or commits a criminal breach of trust, more than once, the same by itself may not be sufficient to attract the provisions of MCOCA.”
• Furthermore, the Court observed that violence implies use of greater degree of force as defined in Sections 349 and 350 of the Penal Code. “Intimidation” referred to in the clause need not be criminal intimidation as defined in Section 503 of the Penal Code.

Crimes Covered Under The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999:

1. Committing offence of organized crime which results to death;
2. Being a member of organized crime;
3. Aiding or abetting or knowingly facilitating the commission of organized crime or helping in preparation of such acts. For eg- Communicating or handing over documents, passing and publishing of information or documents which is helping in commission of organized crime;
4. Giving shelter or concealing any member of organized crime;
5. Holding or looking after any property derived or obtained from commission of organized crime or property in possession on behalf of organized crime.

Jurisdiction of The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999:

MCOCA applies to the entire State of Maharashtra. The Home Ministry of the Government of India extended the applicability of MCOCA to the National Capital Territory of Delhi as well, by a notification dated 2 January 2002. MCOCA overrides all other Indian laws and will prevail over any Indian law that conflicts with the provisions that MCOCA contains.

There are two reasons why MCOCA is seen at par with the Central Legislation and in some cases have an overriding effect on State as well as Central Acts:

• Firstly, that being a State Act it has received the assent of the President of India; and
• Secondly, by virtue of Section-25 of the Act which unequivocally quotes while initiating with Non-obstante clause that, anything contained in this Act or any rule or any order made under such rule shall have effect over anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force and any instrument which is having force of law.

Offences Under the Act to be Tried by Special Court:

Every offence under MCOCA is to be tried only by a Special Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed or as the case may be by the Special Court constituted for trying offences under Subsection (1) of Section 5.

1. In MCOCA cases, access is given to Police that instead of 90 days of cases concerned, officer can file charge sheet within 180 days.

2. After producing the accused in the court within 24 hours, in MCOCA cases, an arrested person can be kept under police custody for 30 days instead of the 15 days in ordinary criminal cases.

Presumptions as to Offences Under Section 3 of MCOCA:

Section 3 provides punishment for the commission of organized crime. If it is proved that

• There are unlawful arms and other material including documents and papers were recovered from the possession of the accused that were used in the commission of the crime,
• That the finger prints were found at the site of the offence including unlawful arms, papers and vehicle used in the commission of offence The special court shall presume the person guilty unless the contrary is proved

Punishment for Organized Crime:

Section 3.

Punishment for organised crime

(1) Whoever commits an offence of organised crime shall,—

(i) if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees one lac;

(ii) in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.

(2) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates, abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organized crime or any act preparatory to organized crime, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.

(3) Whoever harbours or conceals or attempts to harbour or conceal, any member of an organised crime syndicate shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extent to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.

(4) Any person who is a member of an organized crime syndicate shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.

(5) Whoever holds any property derived or obtained from commission of an organized crime or which has been acquired through the organized crime syndicate funds shall be punishable with a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees two lacs.

Whoever commits an organized crime that resulted in death of any person is punishable with death or imprisonment for life with fine subject to minimum of 1 lakh. In the case when death has not taken place, the punishment is given for a term, which is not less than five years but can extend to imprisonment for life and also a minimum fine of rupees five lakhs.

According to 3(1)(i) of the MCOCA, any person committing organised crime resulting in the death of any person be punished with a death, or life imprisonment, and a minimum fine of Rs. 100,000.

According to 3(1)(ii) of the MCOCA, any person commits other organized crime be punished with imprisonment for a term between five years to life, and a minimum fine of Rs. 500,000.

According to 3(2) of the MCOCA, any person conspiring to, abetting, aiding in, or knowingly facilitating organised crime be punished with imprisonment for a term between five years to life, and a minimum fine of Rs. 500,000.

According to 3(3) of the MCOCA, any person harbouring or concealing a member of an organised crime syndicate be punished with imprisonment for a term between five years to life, and a minimum fine of Rs. 500,000.

According to 3(4) of the MCOCA, any person having membership in an organised crime syndicate be punished with imprisonment for a term between five years to life, and a minimum fine of Rs. 500,000.

According to 3(5) of the MCOCA, any person holding any property derived from the commission of organised crime, or from the funds of an organised crime syndicate be punished with imprisonment between three years to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees two lacs.

According to 4 of the MCOCA, any person possessing movable or immovable property on behalf of an organised crime syndicate be punished with imprisonment for a term between three to ten years, a fine of Rs. 100,000 and forfeiture of the property in question as provided in section 20.

According to 14 of the MCOCA, any police officer who violates section 14 shall for such violation be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and with fine upto rupees fifty thousand.

According to 19(4) of the MCOCA, any person who contravenes any direction issued under subsection 19(3) be punished with imprisonment for term which may extend to one year and fine which may extend one thousand rupees.

According to 24 of the MCOCA, a public servant helping to carry out organised crime, or failing to take lawful measures under MCOCA, or disobeying orders of Special Courts under MCOCA be punished with imprisonment for up to three years and also with fine.

Constitutional Validity of the MCOCA:

In Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v State of Maharashtra, 2007 (6) Bom CR 294 and State of Maharashtra v Bharat Shanti Lal Shah, (2008) 13 SCC 5 cases, the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court respectively approved constitutionality of the MCOCA, 1999.

Conclusion:

These wide powers and ‘stringent’ provisions have been justified because the Act: deals with such incorrigible organised criminals whose activities cannot be controlled and it is not ordinarily possible to bring them to books by the ordinary law of the land. Thus, we again see a continuation of the trend of upholding more stringent provisions in antiterrorism legislation, with the justification that they were dealing with a special kind of crime.