(UNDER THE MAHARASHTRA CONTROL OF
ORGANIZED CRIME ACT, 1999)
BAIL APPLICATION NO.9 OF 2006
IN
M.C.O.C C.R.NO.53 OF 2006 OF DCB
CID
1. Shri Mahendra Jagdish Agarwal]
2. Shri Madhukar Ramchandra Musle]
3. Shri Vishnu Krishna Dutt]
4. Shri Surendra Khurdan Pasi]
5. Shri Ramdas Manohar Masurkar]
6. Shri Ajay Damodar Sharma] … Applicants
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra]
(at the instance of DCB CID,]
Unit-VIII, Mumbai,]
in C.R.NO.53 / 06)]. Respondents
Coram
: His Honour The
Special Judge, (Under
The MCOC Act, 1999).
Shri A.M.Thipsay
Dated
:September
07, 2006.
-2-
Shri H.H.Ponda, Advocate for the
applicants.
Shri J.R. Madon, Special Public
Prosecutor for State.
O
R A LO R D E R
1.The applicants, who are arrested and detained in custody on the
allegations of having committed offences punishable under sections 387
of the I.P.C., 506 Part II of the I.P.C. read with section 120(B) of the
I.P.C., and offences punishable under sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4)
of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 19999 [hereinafter
referred to as ‘MCOC Act’ for the sake or brevity], seek bail.
2.Since the bail application was filed at an early stage of the
investigation and since the investigation that was being carried out was
resulting in collection of further and new material, the bail
application was kept pending for quite some time, as it was felt that
the material that was being collected, could not be ignored.In fact, the material, which was not available with the
investigating agency when the bail application was argued and which was
collected only thereafter, has also been taken into consideration by me.On the last date of hearing, it was stated that the investigation
was over and the process of filing a charge sheet was in progress.
3.I have heard Shri H.H.Ponda, learned Advocate for the applicants.I have heard Shri P.R.Rane, Assistant Commissioner of Police, DCB
CID, Mumbai who is the Investigating Officer in the matter.I
have also heard Shri J.R.Madon, learned Special Public Prosecutor for
the State.Shri Madon submitted that as the matter
was at the investigation stage, the Court may peruse the entire
case-diaries and the statements recorded during investigation in the
light of the say filed on behalf of the investigating agency, and then
decide the bail application.As a matter of fact,
Shri Madon did not advance any arguments based on the material collected
during investigation; rather, he submitted that the Court may peruse the
entire material as collected during investigation and in the light
thereof, decide the bail application.
4.I have gone through the say filed by the police, opposing the
application.
5.I have also extensively gone through the F.I.R., the statements
of witnesses recorded during investigation and the case-diaries.I have also taken into consideration the contents of the remand
applications that were filed before the Court from time to time.
6.The applicant nos.1 and 2 are the Directors of M/s. Vertex
Warehousing and Constructions Pvt.Ltd.[hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Vertex’ for the sake of brevity], a company
which owns a land admeasuring more than 8,000 square meters, situate at
Village Mulgaon, Taluka Borivali, which has been declared as falling in
Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,
1971.They are interested in redevelopment of the
said property under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.The
applicant nos.3, 4 and 5 are the office bearers of a proposed
co-operative housing society – Jai Ambe Mulgaon Dongri Housing Society
[hereinafter referred to as ‘Jai Ambe Society’ for the sake of
brevity] of the occupants / slum dwellers of the said property. The
applicant no.6 is a member of the said society.The
first informant is the Secretary of Shree Siddhivinayak Juna Aashram
Rahivasi Seva Sangh [hereinafter referred to as ‘Siddhivinayak Sangh’
for the sake of brevity], another co-operative housing society of the
occupants/slum dwellers of the said property
7.It appears that redevelopment of a property under the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme provides for certain benefits to the developers,
enabling them to make good profits, and is, therefore, attractive from
the point of view of the developers and builders.It
also appears that as per the scheme, the redevelopment project can be
carried out under certain circumstances by the occupants/slum dwellers
of the locality if a society of occupants/slum dwellers for that purpose
is formed and at least 70 percent of the occupants/slum dwellers join
the same.
8.The case of the investigating agency, in brief, is as follows.
9.First informant is a businessman and also a social worker
residing at Juna Aashram, Dongri, MIDC Cross Road, Andheri (East). In
November-December 2005, applicant no.4 – Surendra Pasi, applicant no.5
– Ramdas Masurkar, applicant no.6 – Ajay Sharma, and absconding
accused Pyarelal Patel started taking signatures of the persons in the
locality forcibly on certain agreements.That the
residents of the said locality complained about this to the first
informant and therefore, the first informant and others formed a society
by name ‘Siddhivinayak Sangh’.That in January
2006, applicant no.3 – Vishnu Dutt @ Vishnu Nepali, applicant no.4 –
Surendra Pasi, applicant no.5 – Ramdas Masurkar and applicant no.6 –
Ajay Sharma and some other accused started threatening the residents of
the locality to become members of ‘Jai Ambe Society’.The
first informant and the residents supporting him, got the said
‘Siddhivinayak Sangh registered and the first informant became the
Secretary thereof.The applicant nos.2, 3, 4 and 5
and some other accused started giving serious threats to the residents
of the said locality as they were unable to get sufficient members for
their cooperative housing society – viz. ‘Jai Ambe Society’.The residents were being threatened that unless they would become
members of the said ‘Jai Ambe Society’ they would be killed by
notorious gangster Ravi Pujari.That on 09/04/2006,
the first informant received a call on his mobile telephone from the
said Ravi Pujari.That Ravi Pujari threatened him
that he should withdraw from the committee; and that the entire work
should be allowed to be handled by Vishnu Dutt @ Vishnu Nepali – the
applicant no.3.
10.Since the first informant knew Ravi Pujari since his childhood,
from the manner of talking, he identified the caller to be none else but
Ravi Pujari only.The first informant, however, did
not do as directed by Ravi Pujari and as such, he started receiving on
his mobile telephone, threatening calls from the said Ravi Pujari.That sometime in June 2006, the arrested accused Suresh Bhavangir
and his brother – wanted accused Kishor Bhavangir – came to the
first informant and threatened that he should give up the work of his
society or else, they would tell ‘Bhai’ [meaning Ravi Pujari] to
eliminate him.That he should not enter into any
agreements with the residents of the locality, was told to him by the
applicant no.4 – Surendra Pasi, applicant no.5 – Ramdas Masurkar,
Applicant no.6 – Ajay Sharma and Pyarelal Patel [absconding accused];
and that they told him that Ravi Pujari was interested in the said
place; and that the applicant no.1 was to construct a building there.That in second week of June 2006, the first informant was called
by the applicant no.2 – Madhukar Musle – in the office of Monarch
Builder at Marol.The first informant were there
because the applicant no.2 had expressed a desire that they all should
work together.That when the first informant went
there, the applicant no.1 – Mahendra Agarwal – and applicant no.3
– Vishnu Dutt @ Vishnu Nepali – were present there with the
applicant no.2 – Madhukar Musle.The applicant
no.2, in a threatening tone, asked the first informant as to why he was
interfering in their work.The first informant
claimed that he had support of the residents of the locality and if the
applicant no.2 wanted, he was at liberty top hold a meeting and see if
the residents were ready to join him.That thereupon,
the applicant no.2 threatened by saying that the first informant should
not try to be over-wise; and that he should take whatever money he
wanted to, and go to his native place.Applicant no.2
also threatened that if he would come in their way, by telling to
‘Bhai’ [meaning Ravi Pujari]’ the first informant would be
eliminated.That the applicant no.2 also stated that
‘Bhai’ wanted to do the project; and that the project will be
undertaken by the applicant no.2 only, and not by anybody else.At that time, the applicant no.1 also threatened that the first
informant should leave the ‘Siddhivinayak Sangh’, otherwise, the
matter would be reported to ‘Bhai’.At that time,
the applicant no.3 stated that if the first informant was not ready to
leave the society, he would have to pay Rs.10.00 crores and thereafter
commence further work, otherwise, the consequences would be bad.This, the applicant no.3 stated as the message of ‘Bhai’.Since the first informant was afraid of Ravi Pujari, he did not
lodge any report with the police initially.
11.On going through the case-diaries and the statements recorded
during investigation, it does appear that a number of occupants/slum
dwellers of the locality have spoken about the threats allegedly given
by the applicants to them.There is also a confession
of a co-accused Suresh Bhavangir, recorded under the provisions of
section 18 of the MCOC Act on which, reliance has been placed by the
investigating agency.I have gone through the said
confession.It does speak of the applicants
threatening the residents of the locality and forcing them to sign
certain agreements in connection with the redevelopment scheme.
12.Shri. H.H.Ponda. the learned Advocate for the applicants,
advanced a number of arguments, contending the allegations leveled
against the applicants are false and the entire case against the
applicants is a concocted and false one.He
elaborately pointed out how the property was purchased by ‘Vertex’
only in January 2006 and how the applicant nos.1 and 2 became the
Directors of ‘Vertex’ only on 06/03/2006.It is
pointed out that it is only on 14/03/2006 that the applicant nos.1 and 2
took over the affairs of the said company ‘Vertex’.By
this, what is contended is that the allegations of threats being given
in November-December 2005 or January 2006, on behalf of the applicant
nos. 1 and 2, cannot be accepted, in as much as, till 14/03/2006, the
applicant nos. 1 and 2 had no interest in the scheme at all; and that it
would, therefore, be unlikely that they would instigate the other
applicants and the other accused to threaten the residents.Shri
Ponda also contended that, that the allegations are bogus, is further
clear from the fact that in spite of the claim of threats being given,
actually, nor report was lodged with the police by any of the
occupants/slum dwellers and even by the first informant till 01/07/2006.
13.I have considered this contention.Though it
cannot be doubted that ‘Vertex’ became the owner of the property in
question only in January 2006; and that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 took
over as Directors thereof only in March 2006, this aspect is not
conclusive, in my opinion.It is because the
applicant nos.1 and 2 are builders, and even though they actually became
owners of the land in question later, that they already had interest in
the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, cannot be rule out.As
a matter of fact, the property appears to have been acquired by
‘Vertex’ with the object of redeveloping it under the said scheme,
and therefore, the planning in that regard could have been madeprior
to that.
14.It is pointed out that there had been no complaint of any of the
residents of the locality about the alleged threats given to them, as
spoken by the first informant.Though not conclusive,
this is significant.
15.Shri Ponda contended that, in fact, the first informant and some
other persons are obstructing the legitimate work which ‘Vertex’
intends to carry out.It is pointed out that the
‘Vertex’ had written letters to the Senior Inspector of Police, MIDC
Police Station, in March 2006, apprehending that some persons from the
vicinity might create problems and would not permit ‘Vertex’ to put
their board on site regarding the purchase of the land in question by
them.According to Shri Ponda, some occupants are
preventing ‘Vertex’ from exercising its right over the property; and
that ‘Vertex’ have been properly appointed as developers for the
said property under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, in a meeting of the
residents of the locality.Shri Ponda emphasizes that
he has the support of more than 70 percent of the occupants which is
sufficient for enabling ‘Vertex’ to carry out the redevelopment
project.It is further pointed out that fearing that
obstruction would be caused and ‘Vertex’ would be prevented from
displaying their board on the site, a civil suit was filed by
‘Vertex’ against the ‘Siddhivinayak Sangh’ and the ‘Jai Ambe
Society’ praying inter-alia, for an injunction, restraining the
‘Siddhivinayak Sangh’, their office bearers and servants, etc., from
causing obstruction to the plaintiffs from carrying out the survey of
the said property through private Surveyor, as well as Government
Surveyor.It is also pointed out that the first
informant, who appeared before the Court, did not make any grievance
before the Court at that time – i.e. on 13/04/2006.The observations made by the Court in its order date 13/04/2006
are relied upon by Shri Ponda in support of his claim that the whole
dispute is subsequently created and false allegations have been leveled
against the applicants.There is undoubtedly
substance in this contention.Since it is claimed
that it was fear of Ravi Pujari that prevented the first informant from
making allegations against the applicants, even if this factor – viz.
failure to make any complaint prior to 01/07/2006, even when the parties
were before a Court of law – is held as not conclusive; it cannot be
helped observing that in spite of the fear of Ravi Pujari, the first
informant, though was frightened, did not pay any heed to the demands
made on him by Ravi Pujari.Though he did not report
the matter to the police, he also did not do as allegedly directed by
Ravi Pujari.Thus, the fear of Ravi Pujari does not
seem to have prevented him from doing what Ravi Pujari threatened him
not to do, but only prevented him from lodging a report with the police.
16.It is also pointed out by Shri Ponda
that is claimed in the remand application that the first informant
speaks of having been threatened, inter-alia, by the applicant no.1 in
second week of June 2006, which is obviously false, as the applicant
no.1 was out of India from 28/05/2006 till 29/06/2006; and that this can
be verified from the passport of the applicant no.1, which is now in the
custody of the investigating agency.The
Investigating Officer, when questioned, agreed that this is so, but
claimed that the first informant has subsequently clarified that the
date ‘second week of June’, as mentioned by him, was wrong; and
that, actually, the incident had taken place sometime in second week of
April 2006.
17.Shri H.H.Ponda, learned Advocate for the applicants, also pointed
out that a letter had been addressed to the Senior Inspector of Police,
MIDC Police Station, on 30/03/2006 on behalf of the ‘Siddhivinayak
Sangh’, and that, that letter which is signed by the first informant
and some others, is totally silent about the treats allegedly given by
Ravi Pujari.It is contended that the letter had been
falsely written to obstruct the work of redevelopment that was intended
to be carried out, but in any case, there is not even a whisper of any
threat allegedly given by Ravi Pujari, either to the first informant, or
to any other occupants/slum dwellers.
18.I have glanced through a copy of the said letter which is annexed
to the bail application.That such a letter had
indeed been written by the first informant and some others, is not in
dispute.It may be observed that the contents of the
said letter given an impression that the signatories thereto were
‘terrified’ because of the threats that ‘Jai Ambe Society’ would
develop the property under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.The
grievances of the signatories, as reflected from the contents of the
said letter, seems to be that they had not been shown the relevant
documents of the ownership or title of ‘Vertex’ or ‘Jai Ambe
Society’; and that the residents were being misguided or mislead and
‘terrified’.There is a mention in the
‘subject’ column about threatening to kill the residents of the
locality generally, but there is no mention of there being any threats
by Ravi Pujari.
19.The substance of the contentions advanced by Shri Ponda, learned
Advocate for applicants, is that the applicant nos.1 and 2 being owners
of the property and having the support of the requisite number of
occupants/slum dwellers, are entitled to carry out the redevelopment
project; and that, as such, they have no reason to take the help of any
‘organized crime syndicate’ for doing that.Shri
Ponda also submitted that, that the developers had support of the
particular percentage of occupiers, is clear from the total number of
occupiers, as found in the survey dated 03/05/2006, carried out as per
the order of the Court.It is submitted that
actually, it is the first informant, who is connected with a political
party and who, on his own admission, knows Ravi Pujari, is creating
obstacles in the path of the applicant nos.1 and 2 by making false
complaints against them.
20.It is contended by Shri Ponda that actually, the applicants have
been the victims of the extortion of Ravi Pujari.In
fact, one of the applicants – i.e. applicant no.3 – had already
lodged a report against Ravi Pujari in the year 2002, alleging that the
said Ravi Pujari was demanding ransom from him and was threatening to
kill the applicant no.3 if the demand was not fulfilled.
21.Since the attempt of Shri Ponda is to show that the allegations
that are being levelled against the applicants cannot be, prima-facie,
believed, it was contended by Shri J.R.Madon, the learned Spl.P.P. for
State, that the Court should not weigh or evaluate the material
collected during investigation; and that it should be taken at
face-value.There can be no dispute as regards this
proposition, but this does not mean that the material is not be assessed
at all.
22.The Supreme Court of India, in Ranjit Singh V/s. State of
Maharashtra and another, 2005, Supreme Court of India, 1057, has laid
down that the duty of the Court at the stage of bail was not to weigh
the material meticulously, but to arrive at a finding on the basis of
broad probabilities of the case; but that while dealing with a statute
like the MCOC Act and having regards to the special provisions contained
in sub-section (4) of section 21 of the said Act, the Court may have to
probe into the matter deeper.It appears
from the observations made by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of
India that where there are drastic provisions regarding grant of bail, a
deeper probe into the matter, than is normally expected to be made at
the stage of bail, would be necessary and justified.
23.In my opinion, even at this stage, the following factual aspects
of the matter, which cannot be disputed, are required to be taken into
consideration.
i)The matter was reported to the police by
the first informant very late.
ii)Though the fear of Ravi Pujari is given as
the reason for not reporting the matter to the police earlier, it is not
that a complaint was not made to the police at all.In
the letter dated 30/03/2006, addressed to the Senior Inspector of
Police, MIDC Police Station, and signed by the first informant and
others, thee is no reference to the threats given by Ravi Pujari.
iii)None of the residents of the locality had
lodged report against the applicants or any of them till the first
informant lodged the report on 01/07/2006.
iv)Applicant nos.1 and 2 are owners of the
land in question and are interested in redevelopment project under the
Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.The first informant is
also interested in the redevelopment and wants to carry it out by
getting a different developer appointed.
v)There is no material to suggest that if the
redevelopment is allowed to be handled by the ‘Siddhivinayak Sangh’,
the occupants/slum dwellers would get more benefits than that are
promised by the ‘Jai Ambe Society’ through ‘Vertex’.There is nothing to show that the occupants/slum dwellers are
being forced to join a disadvantageous project by giving threats to
them.
vi)The statements of the first informant as
regards the alleged threats given to him in the second week of June
2006, inter-alia, by the applicant no.1, is incorrect, at least to that
extent.
vii)There are grounds for presuming that the
relations between Ravi Pujari and the applicant no.3 are not likely to
be good or cordial.
Though the Court should not
evaluate or assess the evidential value of the material collected during
investigation, it does not mean that the statements of the first
informant and witnesses are to be taken as gospel truth, even if they
are inconsistent with the other facts revealed during investigation and
the undisputed circumstances of that particular case.It
is not that while arriving at a prima-facie finding on the basis of the
broad probabilities of the case, the arguments and contentions advanced
by the accused are to be totally ignored.Though
these factors – singly or collectively – may not be sufficient to
create a belief that the case against the applicants is false, they
collectively certainly create some doubt - based on reason and logic –
that certain parts of the prosecution case may not be true.
24.Anyway, in the view that I am taking, it is not necessary to
discuss this aspect any further.It may only be
observed that there are a number of factors which require serious
consideration as to whether the applicants, or any of them, can be said
to have committed an offence punishable under the MCOC Act.
25.After going through the entire material collected during
investigation, and also the case-diaries, it is observed that it is
nobody’s case that Ravi Pujari had threatened any of the residents or
occupants to join a particular society only.The
allegations are against the applicants to the effect that they have
threatened some of the occupants/residents in the name of Ravi Pujari.
26.It may be observed that the remand applications proceed on the
footing that it is Ravi Pujari who is interested in doing the
redevelopment project; and that the applicants are the members of the
‘organized crime syndicate’ headed by him.The
allegation against the applicants is that the threats that are allegedly
being given by them, are at the instance of the said Ravi Pujari.This stand is a little modified later to suggest that the
applicants have taken the aid or Ravi Pujari to ensure the success of
their redevelopment project.
27.I have categorically asked the Investigating Officer on the date
of last remand as to whether there was any material to show that the
applicants, or any of them, were, or was, in contact with Ravi Pujari;
or that the threats that were being given by the applicants to the
residents were after having discussed the matter with Ravi Pujari.It was conceded by the Investigating Officer that in spite of
making efforts to collect such material, no such material could be
collected.Even today, I have asked the Investigating
Officer as to whether in the investigation carried out since then, any
such material could be found.Today also, the answer
is in negative.In other words, there is
absolutely no material to suggest that the applicants, or any of them,
had contacted Ravi Pujari; or that Ravi Pujari had contacted any of them
in connection with the present matter.
28.An ‘organized crime’ has been defined as under. “organized
crime” means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly
or jointly, either as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on
behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or
intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of
gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage
for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency.”
In this case, there is nothing to
suggest that the alleged acts attributed to the applicants are part of
the activities of the ‘organized crime syndicate’, headed by Ravi
Pujari; or that the activities in question have been undertaken by them
on behalf of the ‘organized crime syndicate’, headed by Ravi Pujari.The money invested in the project is also borrowed by the
applicant nos.1 and 2 from some other source and not from the said Ravi
Pujari or his ‘organized crime syndicate’.Thus,
the alleged activity by the applicants cannot, prima-facie, be said to
be having undertaken by them as a member of an ‘organized crime
syndicate’ or on behalf of the said syndicate.
29When this is the position, what can be, at the highest, alleged
is that the applicants, are abetting the commission of an ‘organized
crime’; but even for supporting such allegation, there ought to be
some material indicating the actual contact between at least one of the
applicants and the said Ravi Pujari, or somebody proved to be from his
‘organized crime syndicate’.As already observed,
there is no such material; and that too in spite of the applicants being
in custody right since 05/07/2006.Moreover, none
of the residents, except the first informant, has received any threats
from Ravi Pujari, or from anybody, proved to be a member of his
‘organized crime syndicate’.Threatening
calls from Ravi Pujari have been received only by the first informant
and by no other resident or occupant.
30.In his confession, the co-accused – Suresh Bhavangir – states
that the applicant nos.1 and 2 were in contact with Ravi Pujari, but
this is merely asserted by him – as a fact – without showing in what
manner and for what they were in touch with him.If
the confession is read as a whole, it is doubtful whether it can be
termed as a ‘confession’ in its true meaning, but apart therefrom,
this accused himself appears to be in touch with Ravi Pujari; and that
it was from him (and not from any of the applicants) that Ravi Pujari
got the telephone number of the first informant.This
material certainly suggests that the applicant nos.1 and 2 had not given
the telephone number of the first informant to Ravi Pujari.If
they were in touch with Ravi Pujari, it would not, ordinarily, be that
difficult for them to procure the telephone number of the first
informant and give it to him.
31.None of the conversations between Ravi Pujari and the first
informant are recorded.Even after registering of the
F.I.R., the first informant is said to have received threatening calls
from Ravi Pujari, but even the conversation in respect of the said calls
has not been recorded.In the light of the
contentions advanced by Shri Ponda and the admitted positions that the
first informant himself knows Ravi Pujari, this aspect of the matter is
required to be taken into consideration.
32.A person, without knowing the gangster, or without having
conspired with him, may threaten another in the name of such gangster by
taking advantage of the notoriety attached to the name of such gangster,
which is likely to frighten that another.That,
however, would not be an ‘organized crime’ unless the threat is
given on behalf of the gangster, or his ‘organized crime syndicate’,
or to assist or facilitate the commission of an offence of ‘organized
crime’ by the syndicate or its members.
33.Merely on the allegation of someone that the accused threatened
him by taking the name of a gangster, if the offence punishable under
the MCOC Act is to be held as committed, even prima-facie, on the
contention that the Court is not assess or evaluate the material
collected during investigation’, it can result into serious injustice.It may be observed that it is quite easy to allege that an
accused threatened the victim by taking the name of the gangster.For instance, it is not difficult for the applicants to allege
that the first informant, who is admittedly interested in doing
redevelopment project independently, had threatened them by taking the
name of Ravi Pujari and warning them to give up the redevelopment
project.The telephonic contacts between the first
informant and Ravi Pujari, then, would be brought in aid to support such
allegation against the first informant.That the
relations between the applicants no.3 and the said Ravi Pujari are not
good, can also be emphasized to add weight to such allegation.It is not for a moment suggested that it might actually be so,
but what is being emphasized is that when allegations in respect of
serious offences are easy to be made, when motives for making the
allegations apparently exist, then, at least, after sufficient
investigation has been carried out, there ought to be some support to
such an allegation.It would be necessary to insist
on at least some material showing the connection of the ‘organized
crime syndicate’ and the person accused, for prime-facie, accepting,
that the accused by giving threat to another has committed an
‘organized crime’.
34.Thus, merely because a person threatens another by taking the
name of a gangster, even if repeatedly, it cannot be presumed that his
act of threatening has been undertaken on behalf of the ‘organized
crime’ headed by such gangster; or that he has conspired with such
gangster or the members of his ‘organized crime syndicate’ to give
such threat.Further, merely by the reason of such
threat being given, the person giving such threat cannot be said to have
conspired, or attempted to commit, or advocated, or abetted, or
knowingly facilitated the commission of an ‘organized crime’.
35.The penal statutes are to be construed strictly.The
MCOC Act being a special statute, the principle of strict construction
applies more vigorously.It would be necessary,
therefore, to see whether the act allegedly committed by the applicants,
squarely fall within the offences defined under the MCOC Act.Since there are drastic provisions as regards bail in the MCOC
Act, a higher responsibility and duty is cast on the Court to make sure
that a prima-facie case of offences under the MCOC Act is made out
before the application for bail is rejected, merely because of the
special provisions regarding bail under the MCOC Act.
36.The Supreme Court of India, in the aforesaid case of Ranjit Singh
Sharma, has observed that the restrictions on the powers of the Court to
grant bail should not be pushed too far; and that the wording of section
21(4) of the MCOC Act does not lead to the conclusion that the Court
must arrive at a positive finding that the applicant for bail has not
committed an offence under the MCOC Act.
37.Upon taking a prima-facie view of the matter, in my opinion,
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants are not
guilty of any offence under the MCOC Act.It may be
observed that the phrase ‘reasonable grounds’ is not the same as
‘sufficient grounds’.
38.Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter; I am inclined
to release the applicants on bail.
39.When the bail order was about to be pronounced, Shri J.R.Madon,
the learned Spl.P.P for State, submitted that since the matter was at
investigation stage, in order that he should not associate himself with
the investigation, he had not seen the statements recorded during
investigation and that he had no opportunity to argue and oppose the
bail application by referring to the statements recorded during
investigation.He submits that this be recorded in
the order.It has already been observed that Shri
Madon had contended, when the bail application was heard, that the Court
might go through the case-diaries and the statements recorded during
investigation before considering the question of bail.I
have already gone through the entire material collected during
investigation.Since Shri Madon has not chosen to
argue the bail application by referring to the statements recorded
during investigation on the ground that he did not desire to associate
himself with the investigation, it cannot be said that he has had no
opportunity to go through the same if he wanted to.In
any case, the Investigating Officer has been heard in the matter and
even today, certain specific questions were put to him.
40.Under the circumstance, following order is
passed.
O
R D E R
Applicants are ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.
25,000/- [Rupees twenty five thousand only] each, with one surety in
like amount, on the following conditions.
i)The applicants shall make themselves
available for investigation / interrogation as and when required by the
Investigating Officer.
ii)The applicants shall not leave the limits
of Brihan Mumbai till the filing of the charge sheet, without the
express permission of the Investigating Officer.
iii)The applicants shall not contact, meet
and/or approach the first informant and/or the witnesses in any manner
whatsoever.
7.Surendra Khurdan Pasi,
aged 45 yrs., resident of Room no. 1, Khurdan Pasi Chawl, Mulgaon, Dongri,
A.K. Road, Andheri ( E ) , Mumbai-93
( j – mcoc – 11/07 )
CORAM:HIS HONOUR THE SPL. JUDGE
( Under M. C. O. C. Act )
SHRI M. P. KUKDAY ( C. R. NO. 52 ).
DATE:05. 3. 2009.
Mr. Joshi, learned APP for the state.
Mr. H. H. Ponda, learned
advocate for accused nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Girish kulkarni, learned
advocate for accused nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7.
Mr. Bhanushali, learned
advocate for accused no. 5.
ORAL
JUDGEMENT
1.Accused nos. 1 to 7 have pleaded not guilty to the charge for
commission of
offences along with absconding
accused Ravi Pujari, Kishor Padmakar Bhagangir,
Pyarelal Patel and others
punishable u/s. 387, 506( ii ), 467, 468, 474 r/w. 120 – B in
alternative r/w. 34 of Indian
Penal Code ( I. P. C. ) and section 3 ( 1 ) ( ii ) r/w. 3 ( 2 ),
3 ( 2 ) and 3 ( 4 ) of the
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime ( M. C. O. C. ) Act,
1999 and claim to be tried.
Hence, this trial.
2. The prosecution case as it appears from the record placed before
this Court is
that,
M. I. D. C. Police Station has registered the F. I. R. vide crime no. 53/
2006 on
05.
7. 2006 for commission of offences punishable u/s. 387, 120 – B, 506 (
ii ) of IPC
r/w. Sec. 3 ( 1 ) ( ii ), 3 (
2 ), 3 ( 4 ) of MCOC Act. Duration of the offence is said to be
from 01. 1. 2006 to 01. 7.
2006.
3.The information is said to have been received by MIDC Police
Station on 5. 7. 2006 around
03. 30 hrs. By written script. The report is dated 01. 7. 2006.
Complainant Brijilal Shaligram Tiwari, aged 46 yrs., occupation –
business, resident of Mulgaon, Juna Ashram, Dongri, Jagat Tiwari Chawl,
MIDC, Cross Road, “ A “, Andheri ( East ), Mumbai – 93, has lodged a
report that he is residing on the given address since his birth, along
with his family members. He has two Qualis cars for renting out. He has
four rooms and a shop rented out by him. It is the source of income for
his livelihood and he is also doing social work.
Earlier the complainant was
working at Banarasi Dairy Farm owned by his paternal aunt, which was
adjoining Amita Hotel. In that hotel, accused Vishnu Dutta Nepali, Ravi
Pujari, Bala Zalte, Padu Naik used to gather for chit – chatting. He
knows all said persons by face. So also, complainant was also knowing
Suresh Bhavangir Bhau and his brother Kishor Bhavangir by name and face.
4.After giving up the job
at the hotel, the complainant was running a rickshaw and since then he is
doing social work. The complainant, thereafter, for about eight years was
salesman for Pepsi. Complainant used to help and solve problems ofresidents of the locality.
5.In the month of
November – December 2005, persons namely Surendra Pasi, Ajay Sharma,
Pyarelal Patel and Baba Masurkar were obtaining signatures forcibly from
the persons of the locality for making their housing society. Aforesaid
persons Surendra Pasi, Ajay Sharma, Pyarelal Patel and Baba Masurkar were
working at the instance of Madhu Musale. Madhu Musale has a construction
company by name ' Monarch Builders ' and Mahendra Agarwal is his partner.
They have their builders office at Marol. Complainant know Madhu Musale
since 1996. The residents complained the complainant regarding obtaining
of their signatures on the agreement by aforesaid persons. They all,
therefore, decided to unite under the banner of “ Siddhivinayak Juna
Ashram Seva Sangh “.
6. In January, 2006,
Surendra Pasi, Pyarelal Patel, Baba Masurkar, Suresh Bhavangir, Vishnu
Nepali started rounds in their locality for getting occupants to become
members of their housing society. Complainant, therefore, gotembers of Juna Ashram Seva Sangh of which he was secretary for
forming out their own housing society. In that locality, there are about
425 houses and 324 consented to be members of Siddhivinayak Juna Ashram
Seva Sangh, a housing society ( proposed ). complainant became the Chief
Promoter. Above named persons formulated “ Jai Ambe Housing Society “
but had very less numbers/membership. Aforesaid persons, therefore,
started threatening of severe nature including killing persons rejecting
to become the member of Jai Ambe Soceity. Vishnu was instigating aforesaid
persons for extending threats to the persons those who have not become
their members. Aforesaid members further has opened their office in the
vicinity and subsequently in front of the office of housing society
promoted by the complainant. Aforesaid persons were keeping watch on each
resident who are visiting the office of the complainant. Said persons i.e.
accused before the court were threatening those who have not become
members of their society saying that they would receive trouble from Bhai
and were extending threats to the occupants.
7.On 09. 4. 2006, around 10.34 the complainant had gone to Palghar,
Tarapur. Complainant has a mobile cell bearing no. 9324270332. On the
given date and time he has received call from cell having no.
0060388880802. By seeing the number, complainant came to know that the
call is from abroad. Complainant answered call. Caller said “ Brijlal,
Ravi Pujari speaking “. Complainant inquired who is Ravi Pujari. Caller
answered, “ Bhai Ravi Pujari speaking “. Caller asked about committee
and members of the committee. Complainant was avoiding to give information
then that caller said that, ' to get away from the society otherwise
result would be bad ' and further said ' hand it over to Vishnu Nepali '.
Complainant answered that he will think of it. Caller then extended abuses
and threatened, to listen and follow him, otherwise he will send shooter
and would shoot at the complainant. Caller want to develop a land saying
that, ' you do not know what happened with Karim, do it early' and
disconnected the phone. and from the talk he got that it is the call from
Ravi Pujari. Complainant did not contact Complainant being known to Ravi
Pujari Vishnu or Bhai and therefore, Ravi Pujari used to make call on the
said cell by threatening, “ committeese hat jao varna anjam bura hoga
“. Complainant also complained of call from Vishnu Nepali on the same
cell phone threatening with filthy language and he is giving complainant
short date by asking Bhai to do so saying that “ you are aware what
happened to Karim, settle out the matter “.
8.Complainant received 8 – 9 calls from April 2006. All the times,
they were threatening with the directions to quit the society and hand
over to Vishnu or Suresh Bhavangir. 10-12 days before April 2006, Suresh
Bhavangir and his brother Kishor arrived at the office of the complainant
and said give up the work and be clever and go away otherwise they will
inform Bhai to shoot out the complainant. Surendra, Ajay, Pyarelal, Baba
Masurkar were threatening the people of the locality saying that Bhai has
interest in that land and he is to make a building in partnership with
Mahendra Agarwal ( accused ).
9.In June 2006, complainant received a call from Madhu Musale calling
him at builder's office at Marol. Complainant asked him reason. On that
Madhu replied that they will work together. Complainant attended the
office at Marol and Madhu Musale, Vishnu, Mahendra were present at the
Marol builders office. Madhu Musale asked complainant why he is
interfering in their work. Complainant replied why people are supporting
him if they want meeting will be called of the occupants and if they are
coming along with you people ( accused people ) then find it out. Madhu
replied, ' do not be clever tell how much money you want take money and go
away to village, make your life, do not come in their way otherwise he
will get complainant killed by telling to Bhai, Bhai wants to make this
project ', saying that ' he will be doing the building otherwise nobody
could do it '. Then Agarwal said, ' give up the society otherwise it will
be informed to bhai '. On that, Vishnu said that if the complainant is not
willing to quit the society then he will have to pay Rs. 10 Crore to Bhai
then only start with the project otherwise he will have to face severe
consequences.
10.The complainant has stated in the complain that, he heard the news
of shoot out at the office of Mahesh Bhatt and he being frightened lodged
a report of the incident and now he is lodging the report.
11.Additional statements correcting the mistake in the report was made
on 8. 7. 2006 that he had not gone to the office of Mahendra Agarwal in
second week of June, but he had gone to the office of Mahendra Agarwal in
the second week of April and on 8. 7. 2006 around 5. 15 Ravi Pujari has
called him twice and 401 number was flashed on his mobile.
12.Investigation proceeded with search-cum-seisure in the house search
of accused Vishnu while arresting him at his house – room no. 204, A –
wing, Acord Building, Dr. Charansingh Colony, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri
( E ). In the search at the house, police officer found an agreement
mentioning developer M/s. Vertex Warehousing and Construction Pvt. Ltd.,
office No. 2, ground floor, Reliance Arcade, Ramkrishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri ( E ), Mumbai – 59, agreements 23 in numbers and
blank agreements 11 in numbers. Mobile of Samsung Company, black color
having cell no. 9869001774. Other mobile of Bird Company, silver color,
model no. 51602 cell no. 9892779900 came to be seized by seisure memo Exh.
47 dated 5. 7. 2006. The Developers M/s. Vertex Warehousing and
Construction Pvt. Ltd. and at Jai Ambe Mulgaon Dongri Sahakari Grihanirman
Sanstha, Mulgaon, Andheri ( E ), having registered with the names of
members in total 202. It is along with Exh. 47.
13.Arrest panchanama in respect of accused Madhukar Musale, Mahendra
Agarwal, Ramdas Masurkar, Surendra Pasi, Ajay Sharma has been drawn. While
their arrest their cell phones bearing no. of Madhukar Musale, cell no.
9820758105, Samsung Company, model no. SGHD 600, Mahendra Agarwal of Nokia
model no. 9300 -cell no
9892219724, of Ramdas Masurkar – Nokia model no. 6670 cell no.
9969162938 ( there is scoring over no. 19238 ), of Surendra Pasi – Nokia
Model no. 2600 cell no. 9869984365, of Ajay Sharma – two mobiles; Nokia
model 2255 cell no. 9324587740 and Tata Indicom Model no. C-150, cell no.
9223318149 and from Suresh Bhavangir nothing was seised. Arrest made on 5.
7. 2007 vide panchanama Exh. 17.
14.The panchanama regarding Pimpaleshwar Mahadev Mandir for conducting
the meeting of 250 persons by members of Jai Ambe Housing Society is drawn
vide Exh. 15 on 01. 8. 2006.
15.During the investigation, PW-22 Prashant Burde, Addl. C.P., has
recorded confessional statement of accused Suresh Padmakar Bhavangir vide
Exhs. 39 and 40 ( part-I and Part – II ). The cheque bearing no. 856415-
Article-A has been seized on production by PW-42 Prakash Kishorsagar. It
appears that, the approval is received vide Exh. 63 under order dated 6.
2. 2007 – Article-B-1.
16.Investigating officer has recorded the statements of the witnesses
and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheeted the accused for
aforesaid offences.
17.Accused nos. 1 to 7 have filed their written reply during their
examination u/s 313 of Cr. P. C. vide Exhs. 65 to 71 along with certified
copy of order in suite no. 1562/06 and vide Exh. 73 and certified copy of
order in N. M. No. 1764/06 in Suit no. 1977/06 vide Exh. 74 with written
submission of the accused nos. 2 to 4, 6 and 7 vide Exhs. 75 to 79.
18.Following points arise for my determination and my findings with
reasons thereon are as under :-
(
i )Whether
the prosecution has proved that accused nos. 1 to 7 along with wanted
accused Kishor Padmakar Bhavangir, Pyarelal Patel, Ravi Pujari and others
between November 2005 and June 2006 at Brihanmumbai being the members of
the organised crime Syndicate headed by wanted accused Ravi Pujari did
conspire to continue unlawful activities and to commit organised crime to
wit to commit extortion by threatening to eliminate the complainant, who
had undertaken to work of SRA project, in order to force him to leave this
work to the developer of the choice of the aforesaid Organised Crime
Syndicate with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or undue
economic or other advantage to themselves or any other person and for that
objective committed forgery?
( ii )Whether the prosecution has
proved that, accused nos. 1 to 7 along with
wanted
accused and others in furtherance of their common intention and in
pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy on the aforesaid period and
place in the course of same transaction being the members of the Organised
Crime Syndicate headed by wanted accused Ravi Pujari, did commit criminal
intimidation in order to the commission of extortion to the tune of Rs. 10
Crores by threatening to eliminate the complainant with the objective of
gaining pecuniary benefits or undue economic or other advantage to
themselves or any other person and did commit forgery?
(
iii )Whether the prosecution has proved that, accused nos. 1 to 7 along
with wanted accused and others in furtherance of their common intention
and in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy on the aforesaid
period and place in the course of same transaction were the members of the
Organised Crime Syndicate headed by wanted accused Ravi Pujari?
(
iv )Whether the prosecution has proved that, accused nos. 1 to 7 along
with wanted accused and others in furtherance of their common intention
and in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy on the aforesaid
period and place in the course of same transaction in order to the
commission of extortion of a sum of Rs. 10 crores did commit criminal
intimidation by putting the complainant Shri Brijlal Tiwari in fear of
death or of grievous hurt in order to force him to leave the SRA Project
to the developer of the choice of Organised Crime Syndicate of wanted
accused Ravi Pujari?
(
v )Whether the prosecution has proved that, accused nos. 1 to 7 along
with wanted accused and others in furtherance oftheir common intention and in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal
conspiracy on the aforesaid period and place in the course of same
transaction committed criminal intimidation by threatening the complainant
with injury to his person ( reputation or property in whom he is
interested with intent to cause alarm to the complainant or to cause him
to do an act which he is legally bound to do or to cause him to omit to do
an act which he is legally bound to do ) ?
(
vi )Whether the prosecution has proved that, accused nos. 1 to 7 along
with wanted accused and others in furtherance of their common intention
and in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy on the aforesaid
period and place in the course of same transaction dishonestly forged
certain documents purported to be a valuable security to wit the minute
book of Jai Ambe Society?
( vii )Whether the prosecution has proved that, accused nos. 1 to 7 along
with wanted accused and others in furtherance of their common intention
and in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy on the aforesaid
period and place in the course of same transaction dishonestly forged
certain document to wit the minute book of Jai Ambe Society for the
purpose of cheating?
(
viii ) Whether
the prosecution has proved that, accused nos. 1 to 7 along with wanted
accused and others in furtherance of their common intention and in
pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy on the aforesaid period and
place in the course of same transaction had in their possession a docement/
valuable security to wit the minute book of Jai Ambe Society, which they
fraudulently or dishonestly intended to use as genuine and that the said
document falls under one of the descriptions mentioned in Section 466 of
IPC (mentioned in sec. 467 of IPC )?
(
ix )What order?
19.Findings:-( i )In the
negative.
( ii )In the
negative.
( iii )In the
negative.
( iv )In the
negative.
( v )In the
negative.
( vi )In the
negative.
( vii )In the
negative.
( viii )In the
negative.
( ix ) As
per final order.
R E A S O N S
20.PW-3 Brijlal Shaligram Tiwari is the complainant. He depose that,
since birth he is residing at Mulgaon. Witness states that he was earlier
working in a hotel and then was driving his own auto-rickshaw. Thereafter,
he carried business of sell of Pepsi and presently he is engaged in travel
business. Travel office is at the residential address. S. R. A. Project in
the hutment area was to be developed in their locality. Persons from
Vertex Builders started overpowering the slum dwellers on S. R. A.
Project. Persons were Ajay Sharma, Surendra Pasi, Baba Masurkar and
Pyarelal. These persons were also threatening and saying that project
would be worked out by Vertex Builders.
PW-3 further states that, he is also doing social work. People from
hutment locality come to him. They have created “ Siddhivinayak Mulgaon
Juna Ashram Sangh “. He was General Secretary of that committee.
Majority of the hutment dwellers started mobbing at him and therefore,
they have raised proposed Housing Society ( Griha Nirman ). The name was
“ Mulgaon Juna Ashram Griha Nirman Sanstha-Niyojit “. PW-3 is elected
as Chief Promoter.
On 09. 4. 2006, complainant had gone to Palghar. He has his cell
having no. 93242700332.He
has received a call from Ravi Pujari on his cell. Caller said he is Ravi
Pujari. PW-3 questioned him, “ kaun ( who ) Ravi Pujari “. Answer was,
' Bhai Ravi Pujari '. Caller asked who are members of the committee.
Caller said that he is doing that project, so PW-3 should hand over the
project to the named persons. It is further stated that, PW-3 has received
about 8-10 calls during the month of April, 2006. Calls were in the
similar nature.
21.It is further deposed by PW-3 that, in the second week of April
2006, Mahendra Agarwal, Madhu Musale and Vishnu Dutta called PW-3 in the
office of Vertex Builders at Marol Maroshi Road. PW-3 went to the office
of Vertex Builders. Mahendra then said that he is doing project and PW-3
should not be obstacle ( tang mat adao ). PW-3 returned by saying “ okay
“. It is further deposed that, persons named above i. e. accused opened
their office opposite to the office of the Siddhivinayak Society of which
PW-3 is the Chief Promoter. Persons were sitting in their office and
threatening the members of PW-3's society to join them. PW-3 states that,
he lodged many letters with the police chowki but there is no response. It
is approximately sometime in the end of sixth month of 2006, persons from
Crime Branch had come to the office of PW-3. PW-3 was telling his members
that he is getting threatening calls from Ravi Pujari. PW-3 narrated the
story to the persons from Crime Branch. PW-3 accompanied those persons to
the office of Crime branch at Teli Galli, Andheri. They have recorded
statement of PW-3. PW-3 has signed the statement.
22.In the cross examination of PW-3, its answered that, activities of
S. R. A. were started by Vertex Builders and till then neither PW-3 or any
of the persons had showed interest in the SRA Project. PW-3 has received
information and knowledge that Vertex Builders had purchased land for SRA
project and had filed civil suit. PW-3 is party to that suit. Vertex
Builders attempted to fix their board at the site. These activites
commence before April 2006. PW-3 learnt that Vertex Builders has purchased
land on 27.1.2006. PW-3 answered that he has no idea whether accused nos.1
and 2 are the Directors of the Vertex Builders elected in the month of
March, 2006. Suit papers are served on him as party in that suit. Suit
papers disclosed accused nos.1 and 2 are directorsof Vertex Builders. Suit has mentions of parties of land by Vertex
Builders but then subject of the suit was of displaying of the board at
the site. Court has granted permission to display the board. Suit has
mention that accused nos.1 and 2 are elected as Directors on 6.3.2006. It
is answered that PW-3 has no idea that when allegations of threatening to
the hutment dwellers were made before that Vertex Developers has purchased
that site. It is there further answered that PW-3 has not seen any man or
any of his members being threatened by accused nos. 1 and 2 or by any
persons on their behalf. It is answered that he has not shown any document
to the police before making statement to show that PW-3 had majority of
the people with him. PW_3 further deposed that he did hand over copies of
complaint lodged by him to the various authorities when he made the
statement to the persons from Crime Branch. PW-3 has not lodged any
complaint against Ravi Pujari. Some complaints were lodged against accused
Madhu Musale and Mahendra Agarwal and those complaints were prior to
lodging of the suit and not after the suit.
23.It is further answered by PW-3 that there was second suit for
survey of the land and under the order of the Court survey was made. First
suit was filed in he month of April 2006 and second suit was filed in he
month of May 2006.
24.Omissions marked as about threats from Vertex Builders to the
hutment dwellers. It is answered that he has not lodged any complaint
after he was threatened at the office of the Vertex Builders when has
visited it. Ommissions marked and proved are about call by accused to PW-3
at the office of Vertex Builders at Marol. It is further answered that
PW-3 is not aware when Committee and Society was formed but it was aware
when Committee and Soceity was formed but it was prior to filing of the
suit. It is further answered that he has not applied for any permission
for executing SRA scheme till filing of the complaint and on 21. 7. 2006
he has filed an application for permission for SRA scheme i.e. for
acquisition of the land in the name of the society and under his signature
as office bearer. It is answered that, PW-3 learnt of the threats from
Ajay, Surendra, Baba and Pyarelal when people complained. It is answered
that these four persons had no right or interest in the Vertex Builders.
It is further answered that these four persons are also occupants and
residents of the locality in question. It is answered that Vishnu was
secretary of Jai Ambe Society having interest in executing SRA project.
25.PW-4 Satyawan Patil deposed that, people of the locality had first
formed a committee by name Siddhivinayak Juna Ashram Niyojit Committee and
then formed Siddhivinayak Juna Ashram Grihanirman Society. He was member
of that committee and society. There is another society by name Jai Ambe
formulated by Monarch Builders and by refreshing of memory of the witness,
he states that, formulated by society by name Vertex Builders. There are
425 huts at Mulgaon of which SRA scheme was to be executed. Occupants were
confused with whom they should go whether with Siddhivinayak Society or
with Jai Ambe Society because of the dispute between the societies.
Meeting of the society was headed over by PW-3 Tiwari and member PW-4 used
to be in the evening in the office. Then Tiwari used to tell that he is
receiving phone from outsiders to stop the activities. Once PW-3 has
disclosed that phone was from Ravi Pujari and therefore, they have decided
to take help of the police. They were then called by ACP Rane, to whom
things were narrated.
26.Omissions marked and proved by the defence that Jai Ambe society is
formed by the Vertex Builders. It is answered that, initially Jai Ambe
Society was formed by occupants of Mulgaon for whom SRA scheme was to be
executed. It is answered that members of Jai Ambe society were interested
in giving project to Vertex Builders and members of Siddhivinayak Society
were interested to give that project to Santosh Enterprises. It is
answered that Vertex Builders has not formed Jai Ambe Society.
27.The prosecution has also examined witnesses i. e. PW-5 Shrikant
Vategaonkar, PW-6 Vinayak Mirajkar, PW-10 Subhash Nalawade, PW-11 Jitendra
Pawar, PW-12 Vijay Amre, PW-13 Rajendra Kashinath, PW-14 Prabhakar Phanase,
PW-15 Bansu Rajbhar, PW-19 Nitinkumar Shah, PW-26 Ganesh Jadhav, PW-30
Vinodkumar Singh, PW-32 Nitin Deshmukh, PW-35 Harischandra Garasion, PW-37
Nitin Rathod and PW-38 Neena Datt. Evidence of these witnesses are
somewhat similar and identical disclosing that there are two societies
i.e. Siddhivinayak Juna Ashram Society, proposed society, and there is
another society by name Jai Ambe. There was tussle between them and both
were interested in getting more members for their society so that
execution of SRA Project can be made by them respectively. Some of them
have made statements of threatening on the strength by hirelings, but none
of them have been threatened by any of the accused before the Court.
PW-36 Shantidevi Prasad is the member of Siddhivinayak Society.
This witness is regarding putting signature on the application for getting
boring water vide Exh. S-2. He has his signature in Article P-1 at Sr. No.
44.
Evidence
of all the aforesaid witnesses majority of them are interested in
executing SRA scheme under the name and style of Siddhivinayak Housing
society for gaining maximum benefit to them. Needless to state that it is
more tussle for earning money and profits in between promoters of Jai Ambe
Hsg. Society much less Vertex Builders on the one side and PW-3 and his
3-4 associates for claiming the implementation of the scheme or the other
side.
28.PW-7 Saikumar Sadashiv Malode deposes that he is doing social work
and was Karyalay Pramukh Shakha No. 103 i.e. Shiv-Sena Shakha. He deposed
that Suresh Bhavangir phoned to him and called him at Pallavi Hotel he was
called when there was some work at Malpa Dongri hutment area, Andheri ( E
). Suresh then made a call from the cell and handed over cell to him. At
the other end call was answered by Ravi Pujari. It says that, his wife
sister's husband is executing work and PW-7 should inform to Patil, a
Nagarsevika, that nobody should obstruct the work including B.M.C. and
police officials. Caller further said that if his directions are not
followed he will make broad day light shootout and before disconnecting
the phone, he gave some abuses to PW-7 answered that he is nowhere
interested in the affairs. Police has recorded his statement and PW-7 was
produced before M.M.
In
the cross examination, it is answered that affairs of Malpa Dongri is
altogether different than the project in question.
29.PW-8 Vijay Sharma states that he is residing in Mulgaon Dongri,
MIDC, Andheri. In 2006, SRA project was to be executed in their locality.
There used to be meeting at the house of PW-3 Brijlal Tiwari. He has given
documents of his house to Mr. Tiwari. Other party formed Jai Ambe society.
Ajay Sharma obtained signatures from him and his father. Matter is
informed by PW-8 to members of the Siddhivinayak Society. On 11. 7. 2006,
he was called at Bandra police station. Police showed him the register.
There was signature in English in front of his name and of Ajay Sharma.
Witness states that, he has never signed in English. He always sign in
Hind and signature shown to him is not his signature.
30.PW-9 Shashikant Tambat is a teacher by profession. He testified
that in the month of November-December ( probably 2006 ) in their locality
they all come together and formed Siddhivinayak Committee and subsequently
they have formed Siddhivinayak Housing Society. Mr. Tiwari was head of
their group. Other persons were forcing to have agreement with them. Some
of the persons were from their locality. Discrepancies were in respect of
known of SRA scheme. They opened their office as well opponent also opened
their office opposite to their office. Opponent threatened him and persons
of their society. Mr. Tiwari used to tell that he is receiving threatening
calls and then complaint was lodged. In the cross examination, it is
answered that in his presence nobody threatened Mr. Tiwari. He has only
hearsay information.
31.PW-39 Narhari Bhatkar is Upper Additional Collector, Encroachment,
Mumbai Suburban as Nayab Tehsildar. He deposes that, acquisition of land
is undertaking by their office. Their office has received application from
Siddhivinayak Society on 24. 4. 2006 for SRA Scheme and their application
is still pending.
In the cross examination, it is answered that if the land owner is
developing the land, there is no question of land acquisition.
32.It is not to be stated that PW-4 and his associates are the parties
to the suit initiated by the accused nos. 1 and 2. It is not in dispute
that said land is purchased by them.
33.The evidence of PW-16 Manohar Surve discloses that, he was
president of Jai Ambe Housing Society. The scheme was to be implemented by
Vertex Builders. They all occupants started coming to him informing that
some builder has purchased land under locality. They have gathered at Shiv
Temple on 22nd march, 2006. Meeting was attended by about
150-200 residents. In that meeting, issue of development of the land was
discussed and it was decided that whoever is satisfying their requirement
will develop the land. Accordingly, PW-16 and three others were nominated
for contacting builders and convey they facilities required by
residents/occupants. Then meeting was arranged on 27.3.2006. For his own
problem, he was required to leave the place permanently and witness has
left for his native place.
It
is in the cross examination answered that, accused nos. 3,4,6 and 7 were
office bearers of Jai Ambe Society and they all were interested in
formulating a scheme. PW-16 has communicated Mahendra Agarwal and Masurkar
the facilities required by the occupants/ dwellers and he was satisfied
with the discussion between them.
34.In the light of aforesaid evidence, what is made out is differences
between two groups regarding implementation of the SRA scheme and nothing
more. Evidence of PW-3 Tiwari also does not disclose that he has reported
the matter to the police after getting threatening calls and or he has
jotted down or recorded or stored the cell no. of the caller which is
normally flashed on the screen of the cell phone to make it known to the
police for lodging the complaint and or any time during the inquiry.
35.PW-1 Sayyadali Sayyed is a panch witness of drawing of the
panchanama of the place of occurrence of Datta Mandir wherein PW-16 has
conducted the meeting. Panchanama is at Exh.15.
36.The evidence of drawing of the panchanama of place of occurrence
appears to be for the purpose of threatening to some members of the
society or obtaining signature, but then in the light of the evidence of
PW-16 purpose of the prosecution for drawing the panchanama appears to
have been completely defeated.
37.PW-2 Suresh Khedekar is another panch witness for arrest-cum-seisure
of the articles from the accused. It is deposed by him that, Mahendra
Agarwal was arrested and one mobile was seized. Mobile probably of Nokia
Company. PW-2 is not remembering the cell no., but it is mentioned in the
panchanama Exh.17 the cell no. as 9892219724.
Police made arrest of Madhukar Musale and seized one mobile
probably of Samsung Company. Witness does not recollect the cell number. (
cell no. of Madhukar 9820758105 as per panchanama Exh.17 ). Police then
arrested Masurkar and seized one mobile of Nokia make. Witness is not
recollecting the cell no. ( cell no. 99691629385 as per panchanama Exh. 17
). Police arrested Surendra Pasi with mobile of Nokia make, he does not
remember the cell no. ( cell no. 9869984365 as per panchanama Exh. 17 ) .
Police further arrested accused Ajay Sharma and seized two mobiles of
Nokia Company. He does not remember his cell no. (cell no. 9324587740 and
9223318149 as per panchanama Exh. 17). Then police arrested accused Suresh
Bhavangir, but nothing found from his person. Panchanama Exh. 17 is signed
by him.
38.PW-17 Prakash Musale discloses that, he was working as Nagar Sevak
of adjoining locality and knowing about SRA scheme of Mulgaon through his
friends. He was asked to help those persons for their work. Baba Masulkar
and Ajay Sharma had a society and they are his friends. As his handwriting
was good he was making writing work for them. There were meetings of
executives and he had made writing work for them. Evidence of this witness
is of no use to the prosecution.
39.PW-18 Smt. Mangala Desai deposes that, he know accused Mahendra
Agarwal and Narendra Agarwal. They have obtained loan of Rs. 12 lacs from
her husband. After death of her husband, she inquired about the money. In
lieu of Rs. 12 lacs they gave her flat at Jagdish Apartment and one shop.
She has sold out that flat to one Mr. Thakur and Mahendra obtained her
shop premises. The amount received by him out of sale proceed of the shop
were paid by him to Ravi Pujari. Witness got only cheque of Rs. 90,000/-
but flat was sold for Rs. 3 lacs. The cheque was encashed by her by
depositing it in the joint account of her with her daughter. Her husband
Shrikant Desai and Vishnudhar were running a hotel. She has no knowledge
to whom hotel was sold. Witness is owning a car and said car sold to
Govind Desai and she is residing on the given address.
In the cross examination, she answered that there is no writing
that her husband has given Rs. 12 lacs to Mahendra Agarwal. Mahendra of
his own has stated of obtaining money. It is answered that, she does not
know to whom she sold shop. She has not done any writing about sell of the
shop. It is answered that no amount has been paid to Ravi Pujari in her
presence nor she has directed to pay the amount to Ravi Pujari. She has
not issued any notice to Mahendra for getting loan amount out of sale
proceed of the shop. Evidence of this witness appears to have been brought
on record to show that Mahendra Agarwal has direct connection with
underworld person Ravi Pujari.
40.Evidence of PW-9 absolutely possess no evidential value because
nothing was in her knowledge except that Agarwal gave her flat which was
sold by her. In short, connection attempted to be established between
Mahendra Agarwal and Ravi Pujari is not made of this witness. Hence, there
is no evidential value to the statement of this witness.
41.PW-20 Narendra Agarwal deposes that, he has sold the flat in
Jagdish Apartment in the name of Mangala Desai. Earlier she was tenant in
the premises. It was given in exchange to her out of the direct
transaction between them and rest is not known to him.
In the cross examination, it is answered that he has separate
business from Mahendra Agarwal and no relations with Mahendra Agarwal that
is to say, he has no business relations with Mahendra Agarwal.
42.PW-21 Vilas Sawant testified that, land at Mulgaon Dongri was owned
by Hiren Tadiya and he was to sold that land. He had arranged a meeting of
Musale and Hiren for transaction. The deal of sale-purchase was settled at
3.60 Crores. He has gone to meet them for 2-4 times and rest is not known
to him. Evidence of this witness discloses that land owned by Hiren Tadiya
and which has been purchased by Musale party for filing the suit.
Evidence, therefore, discloses that occupants of Mulgaon were having their
huts on the land of Hiren Tadiya.
43.PW-22 Prashant Burde, Addl. C.P., has recorded confessional
statement of accused Suresh Bhavangir vide Exh. 39 ( part-I ) and Exh. 40
( part-II ) . Cross examination of this witness loudly sound that
statement recorded by PW-22 is a mechanical approach. Required care is not
being attended before recording of the statement. Evidence on record
further discloses that, on production of this accused before C. M. M.,
accused has retracted from the statement that nothing has been stated by
him.
44.Evidence of PW-23 Madhukar Jamble is that, he has a garage at
Andheri. He was knowing deceased Shrikant Mama. Shrikant and he were
employed at one office. Ravi Pujari, Dinesh Kamble, Raja Kamble, Milind
Pednekar used to visit the house of Shrikant. PW-23 know Suresh Bhavangir
and Kishor Bhavangir. They were residing at Andheri. Accused Madhu Musale
and Mahendra Agarwal is known to this witness because they were visiting
the hotel of Leo Karwarlo and he was also going to that hotel. Witness has
been declared hostile and in the cross examination by the prosecution.
Nothing is extracted from this witness. The attempt of the prosecution to
bring accused nos. 1 and 2 in contact with Ravi Pujari again failed.
45.PW-24 Dinesh Kambli deposed that he know Ravi Pujari. He was
visiting the place of Shrikant. Mahendra Agarwal and Musale were also
visiting the place of Mama. Suresh Bhavangir, Kishor Bhavangir, Kamble
brothers were also visiting the place of Mama. They are before the court.
Agarwal and Musale are having occupation of construction. Mama was helping
them by giving them financial assistance. Mama died in an encounter. After
death of Mama, Ravi Pujari was looking after business of Mama and Mama had
given Rs. 12 lacs to accused Mahendra Agarwal. In lieu of that money,
Mahendra had given him a flat anda
gala. Prosecution put question to this witness that, to whom Ravi Pujari
was telling work? This witness answered that, to the brother of this
witness Raja Kamble. On every Diwali, Mahendra Agarwal used to pay Rs.
50,000/- to Ravi Pujari through his brother Raja Kamble.
In the cross examination, it is answered that the transaction
between Mama and accused Mahendra Agarwal never taken place in the
presence of this witness. Similarly Raja has not obtained money from
Mahendra and paid it to Ravi Pujari in his presence. Evidence of this
witness being in the nature of the accomplice as well as hearsay can have
hardly any evidential value. Prosecution again marked its failure to
establish connection between Mama and Ravi Pujari as well Mahendra and
Mama. Evidence further discloses that it was transaction through others.
It does not speak or whisper about Mahendra Agarwal dealing with Ravi
Pujari directly.
46.PW-25 Jitendra Siddhpura is a Sub-Engineer in Slum Rehabilitation
Authority. He is examined to show that minimum 70% under the slums are
required for implementation of SRA scheme. Requirements as per DC
Regulation 33 ( 10 ) are to be completed for getting Occupation
Certificate. It is answered that procedure under Land Acquisition may
commence if owner is not party to the proposal. It is, therefore, further
answered that if owner moves the authority for development proposal
showing 70% of the membership then even if there is opposition 30% persons
he can develop the scheme.
47.PW-27 Dattatray Zunjarrao deposed of knowing Madhukar Musale and
Mahendra Agarwal, accused before the court. He was employed by them as
site supervisor. Witness is declared hostile. Prosecution marks failure to
have anything beneficial to the prosecution in his cross examination.
Evidence of this witness is not useful to either of the party.
48.PW-28 Sabhaji Kamble, panch witness of house search of accused
Vishnu. It is answered that two mobiles and 202 files were seized under
panchanama Exh. 47. It appears that these 202 files correspondents to the
agreements of slum dwellers out of 425 slum dwellers. PW-28 discloses
that, he does not recollect the mobile numbers.
49.Evidence of PW-29 Divakar Shetty is of undertaking job of SRA
development. Gondivali village, Andheri ( E ) was under the redevelopment.
PW-29 received phone call from Ravi Pujari. On 10th May, 2006
Ravi Pujari inquired whether he is developing Gondivali Village. Witness
answered in the affirmative. Caller asked for the ransom amount. PW-29
replied that, he has no money, wherefrom he will give money. He has lodged
a report to Andheri Police Station. It is stated that, phone numbers
flashed on his cell were 501/404/175 last three digits out of 13 digits.
It is further deposed that he knows Suresh Bhavangir and Madhu Kamble.
They were residing behind his hotel. They had shown him papers for
redevelopment of their land. PW-29 gave them visiting card.
Site at Gondivali for redevelopment is nothing to do with the SRA
scheme at Mulgaon i.e. over disputed land. It appears that prosecution has
attempted to get from the mouth of this witness that one of the accused
had approached him for contract to redevelop the land. Needless to state
that, evidence of this witness is contrary to the prosecution witness
because land was to be developed by Vertex Builders and not by any other
persons.
50.PW-31 Hashmukh Thoriya is an estate agent, who testified that he
know accused Suresh Bhavangir since 5-6 yrs. as estate agent. Accused
Suresh Bhavangir come to him in connection with the development of the
property where he was residing. PW-31 met a builder known to him who
developed SRA property at Gondivali Village with Suresh. They have settled
the deal for development including the brokerage. Needless to state that,
attempt is made to have consistent evidence with the evidence of PW-29.
Here again, the evidence appears to be of contrary proposition to put
forth by the investigation agency that Jai Ambe Society is formed for the
implementation of SRA scheme and it was to be developed through Vertex
Builders. Approach of accused Suresh to this witness therefore appears to
be doubtful or atleast cannot be made basis to draw conclusion that
accused Suresh made attempt to have get that land for redevelopment
independently or with consultation of the co-interested persons in Jai
Ambe Society.
51.PW-33 Hemantkumar Dantakale deposed that since January 1996 he is
residing in a building Monarch Manor. PW-33 knows Madhukar Musale, builder
of this building. The building has commercial premises on the ground floor
and residential premises on the upper floors. To his information, some
portion of building was developed by Madhu Musale and some by
Siddhivinayak Group. For better maintenance occupants of the building
formed their separate society. He is secretary of that committee. In the
list of the occupants, there was name of Vandana Desai showing she is
owner of shop no. 14A. Witness has not produced any document showing that
any committee was formed or that they had list of members. No document is
filed on record showing that Mrs. Desai owns shop no. 14-A. Oral evidence
of this witness in the absence of any of the supporting document appears
to be for connection with the earlier piece of evidence of sale of shop by
the accused Mahendra Agarwal for making payment to Ravi Pujari. That piece
of evidence has already been discussed and denied. Evidence of this
witness therefore stands neither corroborative to the earlier piece of
evidence nor to be attributed any evidential value.
52.PW-34 is Jagdipsing Attra, a driver, testified that Shrikant Mama
was rickshaw driver and therefore he knows PW-34. PW-34 was working with
Ravi Pujari, Ashok and Jamble. He also know accused Musale and Mahendra
Agarwal being landlord of PW-34. Ravi Pujari used to come to the hotel
Imperial Palace with Shrikant Mama. Madhu Musale and Mahendra Agarwal are
present in the court. The evidence of knowing Shrikant Mama, knowing Ravi
Pujari and one Ashok and Jamble is nothing to do with his knowledge about
Madhu Musale and Mahendra Agarwal, landlord. Evidence regarding Ravi
Pujari and Mama coming to the hotel cannot be linked or connected with the
accused Musale and Mahendra . Attempt of the prosecution to connect
accused Madhu Musale and Mahendra Agarwal with Ravi Pujari, on the basis
of statement of PW-34, to my knowledge, is not acceptable under any of the
provisions of the Evidence Act and as such no evidential value can be
attached to the testimony of this witness.
53.PW-40 Vinayak Sawade, PI, attached to Crime Branch deposed that on
1. 8. 2006 he was attached to DCB CID Unit. One Brijlal Tiwari made
statement to him, which is recorded by him. It was placed before A. C. P.
Rane. Later on, said statement treated as FIR for registration of the
crime. Omissions are proved from this witness.
54.PW-41 Jaggit Jagdipsing working as Sales Executive in Reliance L.G.
at Parel. It is deposed that, Suresh Bhavangir was friend of his father.
Suresh had given him document to get cell phone. He was supplied one cell
bearing no. 932225539. Upon refreshing the memory, PW-41 stated that, cell
no. was 9322255393 and said Bhavangir is present before the Court.
Evidence of this witness even if it is accepted it can at the most of sell
of sim card by PW-41 to Suresh Bhavangir and nothing more.
55.PW-42 Prakash Kishorsagar is the branch manager at UCO Bank, Vile
Parle Branch. Zunjarrao had issued a cheque in the name of Sonal Desai
which was passed by their bank. On the request of police that cheque was
produced before the police. It was seized by them. It was in the sum of Rs.
90,000/- vide Article-A. Evidence of this witness is again an attempt to
earlier piece of evidence discussed hereinbefore of receiving of Rs. 90,
000/- by Sonal Desai. Needless to state that, assuming that sum has been
issued by Zunjarrao it would not mean that it was issued by transaction
claimed by the prosecution because it is not supported by any other
related evidence either circumstantial and or any evidence which can
otherwise be treated as evidence relevant to the offence under charge.
56.PW-43 Pramod Rane, PSI attached to Detection Crime Branch, Unit no.
IX, Andheri, deposed that, there were lot of complaints against Ravi
Pujari for threatening. PW-43 and PI Saudhe were inquiring in the matter
of threats by Ravi Pujari. During their inquiry they came in contact with
one Brijlal Tiwari much less in contact of Saudhe who complained of
threatening to him by Ravi Pujari. Inspector Saudhe has recorded statement
of Tiwari. Saudhe thought that matter falls within the ambit of the
M.C.O.C. Act and therefore, forwarded with his remark to this witness.
Papers were submitted by PW-43 to the Jt. Commissioner Crime for approval.
On the direction and order dated 4. 7. 2006 offence came to be registered
under M.C.O.C. Act. Statement of Tiwari treated as F.I.R. by registering
offence on 5. 7. 2006 at MIDC, DCB CID police station. Subsequently, crime
no. 293 is registered as crime no. 53/06. He has arrested all seven
accused before the Court in Crime no. 53 of 2006, seized mobile phones,
documents by house search. He has recorded statement of number of
witnesses during the investigation and on completion of the investigation,
papers were submitted. Ater receiving of sanction vide order dated 6. 2.
2007, he has charge sheeted the accused. Omissions in the statements of
the witnesses recorded by this witness are proved. They are accordingly
discussed hereinabove while discussing their evidence independently.
57.Section 3 ( 1 ) ( ii ), 3 ( 2 ) and 3 ( 4 ) of M.C.O.C. Act read as
before:-
“ 3 ( 1 ) ( ii ) :- whoever commits an offence of organized crime
shall,
( 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.”
3 ( 2 ) :-“
Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates, abets or knowingly
facilities the commission of an organised crime or any act preparatory to
organised 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 ( 4 ) :-“ Any person who is a 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 extend to imprisonment for life and shall
also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.”
58.Needless to state that the evidence is not touching the ingredients
of the offence under charge. Hence, no grain of evidence to show that
accused Mahendra Agarwal and accused Madhu Musale either independently and
or in connection with anybody has committed any act along with Ravi Pujari.
There is no grain of evidence.
59.Section 2 ( d ) of M.C.O.C. Act reads as before:-
“ 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 organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such
syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheet have been filed
before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that
Court has taken cognisance of such offence “.
60.Section 2 ( e ) of M.C.O.C. Act reads as before:-
“ organized crime “ means any continuing activity by an
individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organized crime
syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate,
by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation of coercion, or
other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or
gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person
or promoting insurgency “.
61.Section 2 ( f ) of M.C.O.C. Act reads as before:-
“ organized crime syndicate “ means a group of two or more
persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang
indulge in activities of organized crime.”
62.Needless to state that, there is no grain of evidence which will
satisfy that any of the accused has committed any offence which is
cognisable much less punishable for imprisonment for three years or more.
There is no grain of evidence which will indicate that any of the accused
either singly or jointly and or as member of organised crime syndicate
have either acted or supported to any of the act which can be called
offence is proved by the prosecution. Needless to state that, there is no
iota of evidence to indicate that any of the accused has committed
unlawful activity individually or singly or jointly and or with members of
Organised Crime Syndicate by use of violence or threat of violence or
intimidation or coercion which can be termed as unlawful act for gaining
pecuniary benefits andor undue economic or other advantage for himself and or for
other persons or person promoting insurgency. The evidence of I.O makes it
clear that there were complaints regarding ransom amount by Ravi Pujari
and his aids. They were on hunt. Dispute between two societies i.e. Jai
Ambe Society and Siddhivinayak Society formulated by occupants Mulgaon
upcoming group headed by Mr. Tiwari has traced out by the I.O and or
coincidently came in contact with the officers of the Crime Branch, but
safely to be said came in contact with each other for reasons the
allegations. At the cost of repetition, the evidence forthcoming is
absolutely point blank to connect any of the accused to punish under
charge. Points are, therefore, answered in the negative.
63.Heard learned counsels for the parties and in sequence, I proceed
to pass following order:-
O R D E R
1.Accused no. 1 Mahendra Jagdish Agarwal, aged 50 yrs., resident of
201, Acropolis, Apartment, Church Road, Marol, Andheri ( E ), Mumbai-59,
accused no. 2 Madhukar Ramchandra Musale, aged 50 yrs. resident of Ramayya
Jivan CHS, Plot no. 33, Shanta Nivas, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri ( E ) ,
Mumbai-93, accused no. 3 Vishnu Krishna Dutta @ Vishnu Nepali, aged 54
yrs., resident of 204, Accord Building, A-wing, Dr. Charatsingh Colony,
Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri ( E ), Mumbai -93, accused no. 4 Ajay Damodar
Sharma, aged 36 yrs., resident of Room no. 3 and 4, Vikrama Pasi chawl,
Mulgaon, Dongri, AK road, Andheri ( E ), Mumbai -93, accused no. 5 Suresh
Padmakar Bhavangir, aged 57 yrs., resident of Sankalp Society, A-2, 504,
Nayapada, Marol Naka, Andheri ( E ), Mumbai 99, accused no. 6 Ramdas
Manohar Masurkar, aged 40 yrs., resident of Shiv Poojan Mistry Chawl,
Mulgaon, Dongri, MIDC, Andheri ( E ),Mumbai -93 and accused no. 7 Surendra Khurdan Pasi, aged 45 yrs.,
resident of Room no. 1, Khurdan Pasi Chawl, Mulgaon, Dongri, A.K. Road,
Andheri ( E ) , Mumbai-93 are hereby and do hereby acquitted of the
offences punishable u/s. 387, 506 ( ii ), 467, 468, 474 r/w. 120-B in
alternative r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3 ( 1 ) ( ii ) r/w. 3
( 2 ) and 3 ( 4 ) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.
2.Their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties are discharged.
3.Property be preserved for trial of absconding accused as and when
they are
arrested.
(Dictated
and pronounced in the open court in presence of accused, learned
prosecutor and defence counsel.)
( M. P. KURDAY )
Spl. Judge ( under M.C.O.C. Act ) ,
Gr. Bombay.
Date:-
05. 3. 2009
DATE
OF DICTATION :3/4/5. 3. 2009
DATE
OF TRANSCRIPTION:4/5/6. 3. 2009
DATE
OF SIGNATURE :
DATE
OF DELIVERY TO :
THE
CERTIFIED COPY SECTION.
Search for content
Indian Squash Professionals
Address:
B/705, 7th Floor, Raylon Arcade, Next to Pidilite, Kondivita Lane, Andheri -East, Mumbai – 400 059
Tel : 9122-28314425/26/27
Mobile : +919819921785
Email: squashindia@yahoo.com
