Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok @ Assu Seth Tilak vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
1 CRR-5853-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5853 of 2025
ASHOK @ ASSU SETH TILAK
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Varun Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi appearing on behalf of Advocate
General[r-1].
Herd On: 03.02.2026
Delivered On: 30.04.2026
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of
BNSS, 2023 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2025
passed in ST No.336/2025 by 4th ASJ, Dewas whereby the charges under
Section 317(2) and 111(4) of BNS, 2023 have been framed against the
revision petitioner in a case arising out of the Crime No.1276/2025 registered
at Police Station Industrial Area, District Dewas.
2. Facts in brief are that the complainant of this case namely Javed
Hussain runs a fabrication shop at Sukhliya road Kshipra District Dewas. On
03.03.2025, an e-rickshaw vehicle used to collect the garbage belonging to
village Panchayat was brought to the fabrication shop for repair and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
2 CRR-5853-2025
complainant tied the said e-rickshaw with chain in front of his fabrication
shop and returned to his home at 11:00PM. In the next morning, the
complainant found that the chain has been cut and the e-rickshaw is also not
available at the place where he had tied the same. On search, it was found at
some distance but batteries and one hydraulic valued Rs.30,000/- were not
available in the said e-rickshaw. He informed the Sarpanch and Secretary of
Village Panchayat, Kshipra, Dewas and lodged the FIR on 19.03.2025 at
Police Station, Industrial Area, Dewas.
3. The FIR bearing Crime No.276/2025 was registered at Police
Station Industrial Area, Dewas under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023 against
unknown persons. After investigation, involvement of 06 persons namely
Ashok, Mohd Parvez @ Ajju, Arbaj @ Sonu, Muzaffar @ Raja, and Ashok
@ Assu Seth and Tilak S/o Chimanlal (Present Petitioner) were found and
they were apprehended but Lakhan s/o Joravar And Gokul s/o Munnalal
Choudhary could not be apprehended and final report under Section 303(2),
317 (2) and 111(4) of BNS, 2023 was submitted keeping the investigation
pending in connection with Lakhan S/o Jorawar and Gokul S/o Munnalal
Choudhary. Accordingly, the charges were framed as mentioned in para no.1
of above.
4. Challenging the framing of charges, this revision petitioner has been
preferred on the ground that no offence is made out under Section 111(4) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Trial Court has committed a grave
error in framing a charge against the petitioner under Section 111(4) of BNS,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
3 CRR-5853-2025
2023. For an offence under Section 111(4) of the BNS, 2023, it is essential
that the accused be involved in continuing unlawful activity and that more
than one charge sheet must have been filed against him before a competent
court within the preceding ten years, and the court must have taken
cognizance of such offences. Thus, the existence of multiple charge sheets
and cognizance orders is a mandatory precondition for prosecuting a person
under Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023. In the present case, a perusal of the
entire charge sheet filed by the respondent police clearly reveals that there is
absolutely no material to show that any cognizance order passed by any
competent court in the past ten years involving the petitioner. It could not be
shown to be a part of a crime syndicate or organized criminal gang.
5. It is further submitted that there is no allegation, no evidence, and no
material whatsoever to indicate that the petitioner is a member of any gang,
group, or crime syndicate engaged in organized unlawful activity. The
prosecution has not shown any link, association, financial nexus,
communication, or participation on the part of the petitioner with any such
organized group. Except for the statement of a co-accused, which itself lacks
corroboration, there is nothing in the entire case record to suggest that the
petitioner is involved in any structured criminal activity. In the absence of
any material establishing the petitioner’s membership or involvement in a
crime syndicate, the essential ingredient of Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023
stands unfulfilled. . It is a well-settled principle of criminal Jurisprudence
that the statement or disclosure made by a co-accused, by itself, has no
substantive evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for implicating
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
4 CRR-5853-2025
another person unless it is duly corroborated by independent, credible
material.
6. It is also submitted that the batteries alleged to have been seized
from the petitioner do not belong to the said e-rickshaw, and the charge sheet
itself does not establish any such connection. It is further submitted that the
prosecution claims to have seized three batteries from the garage of the
petitioner; however, the charge sheet does not disclose any material to show
that these batteries are the same as those installed in the said e-rickshaw.
There is no identification report, no matching serial or chassis numbers, no
statement of the complainant identifying the batteries, nor any technical
report establishing that the seized batteries form part of the said vehicle. The
mere recovery of generic batteries without any proof of ownership,
identification, or linkage with the complainant’s e-rickshaw cannot be treated
as incriminating evidence against the petitioner. In the absence of such
essential evidence, the alleged recovery becomes irrelevant and cannot be
used to draw any inference of guilt. Thus, the prosecution has failed to
establish even a prima facie connection between the seized material and the
stolen property, rendering the charge against the petitioner unsustainable.
7. In support of his contention, counsel for the revision petitioner has
relied upon P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in (2010) 2
SCC 398.
8. Heard.
9. Counsel for the State as well as counsel for the objector has opposed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
5 CRR-5853-2025
the prayer.
10. The involvement of the present petitioner in this case is on the
strength of memorandum dated 09.06.2025 and consequent recovery of three
Excide batteries valued Rs.30,000/- used in the e-rickshaw. The occasion to
be taken the revision petitioner into custody is based on memorandum
statements of Arbaj @ Sonu, Ashok S.o Ratanlal Choudhary and Bharat
Rathore recorded in Crime No.316/2025 registered at Police Station
Chimanganj Mandi, Ujjain as well as the memorandum of one Muzaffar @
Raja recorded on 19.05.2025 in connection with Crime No.276/2025
registered at Industrial Area, District Dewas.
11. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is appropriate to refer
to the scope of exercise of power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C or
presently section 250 of the BNSS, 2023. The Apex Court in P.Vijayan vs.
State of Kerala and another – (2010) 2 SCC 398, made an in-depth
consideration regarding the scope of power under section 227 Cr.P.C and
held thus:
“10. Before considering the merits of the claim of both
the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as
under:
“227. Discharge. — If, upon consideration of the record
of the case and the documents submitted therewith, andSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:123926 CRR-5853-2025
after hearing the submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there
is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his
reasons for so doing.”
If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,
the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the
accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the
trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the
words “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused” clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post
office to frame the charge at the behest of the
prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the
facts of the case in order to determine whether a case
for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In
assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to
enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a
weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities
which is really the function of the court, after the trial
starts.
11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to
sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
7 CRR-5853-2025
accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground
would take within its fold the nature of the evidence
recorded by the police or the documents produced
before the court which ex facie disclose that there are
suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to
frame a charge against him.”
12. In Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation -(2010) 9
SCC 368,(2010) 9 SCC 368, the Apex Court has laid down certain
guiding principles for discharge as under:
“21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope
of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following
principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing
the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out. The test to
determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts
of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained, the court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
8 CRR-5853-2025
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the
broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the court,
any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there
cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court
could form an opinion that the accused might have
committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has
committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative
value of the material on record cannot be gone into but
before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial
mind on the material placed on record and must be
satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused
was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
9 CRR-5853-2025
record with a view to find out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value disclose the
existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it
cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all
that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is
opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of
the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives
rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave
suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to
discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see
whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.”
13. The e-rickshaw from which the batteries were stolen belongs to the
Govt. of Madhya Pradesh purchased by Janpad Panchayat Dewas under the
Panchayat Rural Development Department of Madhya Pradesh through
Secretary from GEM on 12.02.2022 from Aron International. Accordingly,
the stolen property is very feeble and there is no justification of the revision
petitioner regarding the possession of the batteries. Accordingly, the framing
of Charges under Section 317(2) of BNS, 2023 suffers no infirmity, hence,
challenge to framing of charges under Section 317(2)of BNS, 2023 have no
substance and the finding of learned trial Court in this regard is affirmed.
14. Now, the question arises whether the charges under Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
10 CRR-5853-2025
111(4) of BNS, 2023 can be framed against the revision petitioner or not?
15. Section 111. Organised crime
(1) Any continuing unlawful activity including kidnapping,
robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing,
economic offence, cyber-crimes trafficking of persons, drugs,
weapons or illicit goods or services, human trafficking for
prostitution or ransom, by any person or a group of persons acting
in concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised
crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence,
threat of violence, intimidation, coercion, or by any other unlawful
means to obtain direct or indirect material benefit including a
financial benefit, shall constitute organised crime.
Explanation. For the purposes of this subsection,-
(i) “organised crime syndicate” means a group of two or
more persons who, acting either singly or jointly, as a
syndicate or gang indulge in any continuing unlawful
activity;
(ii) “continuing unlawful activity” means an activity
prohibited by law which is a cognizable offence
punishable with imprisonment of three years or more,
undertaken by any person, 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, and includes
economic offence:
(iii) “economic offence includes criminal breach of
trust, forgery, counterfeiting of currency-notes, bank-
notes and Government stamps. hawala transaction,
mass-marketing fraud or running any scheme to defraud
several persons or doing any act in any manner with a
view to defraud any bank or financial institution or any
other institution or organisation for obtaining monetary
benefits in any form.
(2) Whoever commits organised crime shall.-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
11 CRR-5853-2025
(a) if such offence has resulted in the death of any
person, be punished with death or imprisonment for life,
and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less
than ten lakh rupees;
(b) in any other case, be punished 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 fine which shall not be less than five
lakh rupees.
(3) Whoever abets, attempts, conspires or knowingly
facilitates the commission of an organised crime, or
otherwise engages in any act preparatory to an
organised crime, shall be punished 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 fine which shall not be less than five
lakh rupees.
(4) Any person who is a member of an organised crime
syndicate shall be punished 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 fine which shall not be less than five lakh
rupees.
(5) Whoever, intentionally, harbours or conceals any
person who has committed the offence of an organised
crime shall be punished with imprisonment for 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 which shall not be less than five lakh rupees:
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to any
case in which the harbour or concealment is by the
spouse of the offender.
(6) Whoever possesses any property derived or obtained
from the commission of an organised crime or proceeds
of any organised crime or which has been acquired
through the organised crime, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for 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 which shall not beSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
12 CRR-5853-2025
less than two lakh rupees.
(7) If any person on behalf of a member of an organised
crime syndicate is, or at any time has been in possession
of movable or immovable property which he cannot
satisfactorily account for, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
three years but which may extend to imprisonment for
ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not
be less than one lakh rupees.
16. The primary intent behind introducing of Section 111 of BNS,
2023, is to provide a targeted and effective mechanism to dismantle
organized crime syndicate. From a reading of the said provision of law, it is
manifest that for the purpose of invoking Section 111 of BNS, 2023, there
are certain basic parameters and if only it is found that the accused comes
within the said parameters, the offence punishable under Section 111 of
BNS, 2023 can be invoked. The said parameters are as follows:
(a) the offences enlisted in the Section must have been committed;
(b) accused should be a member of an organized crime syndicate;
(c) he should have committed the crime as a member of an
organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate;
(d) he should have been chargesheeted more than once before a
competent Court within the preceding period of ten years for a
cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years
or more and the Court before which chargesheet has been filed
should have taken cognizance of such offence and includes
economic offence;
(e) the crime must be committed by using violence, intimidation,
threat, coercion or by any other unlawful means.
17. In Aamir Bashir Magray v. State (UT of J&K), 2025 SCC OnLine
J&K 721, the Court opined that in order to bring an accused’s actions under
‘organised crime’, it must be shown that they engaged in a continuing
unlawful activity which might include economic offences, and that they were
charge-sheeted more than once before a competent Court in the past ten
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
13 CRR-5853-2025
years, with the Court having taken cognizance for those offences.
18. In the case of Amrish Rana vs. State of H.P.;2026:HHC:3356
reported in 2026 Latest Case Law 346 HP, the legal position regarding the
applicability of Section 111 of BNS, 2023 in para no.14 to 17 has been
discussed as below:-
“14. This section was explained by the Karnataka High Court in
Avinash vs. State of Karnataka (11.03.2025 – KARHC):
MANU/KA/0938/2025 as under:
1. The primary intent behind introducing Section 111 of
BNS, 2023, is to provide a targeted and effective
mechanism to dismantle organised crime syndicates
From a reading of the said provision of law, it is
manifest that for the purpose of invoking Section 111 of
BNS, 2023, there are certain basic parameters, and if it
is found that the accused comes within the said
parameters, the offence punishable under Section 111 of
BNS, 2023 can be invoked. The said parameters are as
follows:
(a) the offences enlisted in the Section must have been
committed;
(b) accused should be a member of an organised crime
syndicate;
(c) he should have committed the crime as a member of
an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such a
syndicate.
(d) he should have been chargesheeted more than once
before a competent Court within the preceding period of
ten years for a cognizable offence punishable with
imprisonment for three years or more, and the Court
before which the chargesheet has been filed should have
taken cognisance of such offence, including an
economic offence.
(e) the crime must be committed by using violence,
intimidation, threat, coercion or by any other unlawful
means.
15. It was laid down by the Kerala High Court in Mohd. Hashim
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
14 CRR-5853-2025
v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 5260, where no charge
sheet was filed against the accused in the preceding ten years, he
cannot be held liable for the commission of an offence punishable
under Section 111 of the BNS Act. It was observed:
“10. Section 111 (1) explicitly stipulates that to attract
the offence, there should be a continuing unlawful
activity, by any person or group of persons acting in
concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of an
organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such
syndicate. The material ingredient to attract the above
provision, so far as the present case is concerned, is that
there should have been a continuing unlawful activity
committed by a member of an organised crime
syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate.
11. Explanation (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section
111 of BNS define an organised crime syndicate and a
continuing unlawful activity, respectively.
12. Continuing unlawful activity under explanation (ii)
of Section 111(1) of the BNS means an activity
prohibited by law, which is a cognizable offence
punishable with imprisonment of three years or more,
undertaken by any person, 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-sheet has to be filed before a competent Court
within the preceding period of ten years and that Court
has taken cognizance of such an offence. Furthermore,
an organised crime syndicate under Explanation (i) of
sub-section (1) of Section 111 of the BNS means a
group of two or more persons who, acting either singly
or jointly as a syndicate or gang, indulge in any
continuing unlawful activity.
13. While interpreting the analogous provisions of the
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999,
which mandates the existence of at least two charge
sheets in respect of a specified offence in the preceding
ten years, the Honourable Supreme Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane
[(2015) 14 SCC 272] has unequivocally held as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
15 CRR-5853-2025
“9. It was in the above backdrop that the High
Court held that once the respondents had
been acquitted for the offence punishable
under the IPC and Arms Act in Crimes No.
37 and 38 of 2001 and once the Trial Court
had recorded an acquittal even for the offence
punishable under Section 4 read with Section
25 of the Arms Act in MCOCA Crimes No. 1
and 2 of 2002 all that remained incriminating
was the filing of charge sheets against the
respondents in the past and taking of
cognizance by the competent court over a
period of ten years prior to the enforcement
of the MCOCA. The filing of charge sheets
or taking of the cognisance in the same did
not, declared the High Court, by itself
constitute an offence punishable under
Section 3 of the MCOCA. That is because the
involvement of respondents in previous
offences was just about one requirement, but
by no means the only requirement, which the
prosecution has to satisfy to secure a
conviction under MCOCA. What was
equally, if not more important, was the
commission of an offence by the respondents
that would constitute “continuing unlawful
activity”. So long as that requirement failed,
as was the position in the instant case, there
was no question of convicting the
respondents under Section 3 of the MCOCA.
That reasoning does not, in our opinion,
suffer from any infirmity.
10. The very fact that more than one charge
sheet had been filed against the respondents,
alleging offences punishable with more than
three years’ imprisonment, is not enough. As
rightly pointed out by the High Court,
commission of offences before the enactment
of MCOCA does not constitute an offence
under MCOCA. Registration of cases, filing
of charge sheets and taking of cognisance by
the competent court in relation to the offence
alleged to have been committed by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
16 CRR-5853-2025
respondents in the past is but one of the
requirements for invocation of Section 3 of
the MCOCA. Continuation of unlawful
activities is the second and equally important
requirement that ought to be satisfied. Only if
an organised crime is committed by the
accused after the promulgation of MCOCA,
he may, seen in the light of the previous
charge sheets and the cognisance taken by the
competent court, be said to have committed
an offence under Section 3 of the Act.
11. In the case at hand, the offences which
the respondents are alleged to have
committed after the promulgation of
MCOCA were not proved against them. The
acquittal of the respondents in Crimes Nos.
37 and 38 of 2001 signified that they were
not involved in the commission of the
offences with which they were charged. Not
only were the respondents were acquitted of
the charge under the Arms Act, but they were
also acquitted in Crimes Case Nos. 1 and 2 of
2002. No appeal against that acquittal had
been filed by the State. This implied that the
prosecution had failed to prove the second
ingredient required for completion of an
offence under MCOCA. The High Court was,
therefore, right in holding that Section 3 of
the MCOCA could not be invoked only on
the basis of the previous charge sheets for
Section 3 would come into play only if the
respondents were proved to have committed
an offence for gain or any pecuniary benefit
or undue economic or other advantage after
the promulgation of MCOCA. Such being the
case, the High Court was, in our opinion,
justified in allowing the appeal and setting
aside the order passed by the Trial Court”.
14. Subsequently, the Honourable Supreme Court in State of
Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine SC
1727], while interpreting the analogous provisions of the Gujarat
Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, clarified the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
17 CRR-5853-2025
ratio in Shivaji alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane (supra) by
observing thus:
“52. It is a sound rule of construction that the
substantive law should be construed strictly so as to
give effect and protection to the substantive rights
unless the statute otherwise intends. Strict construction
is one that limits the application of the statute by the
words used. According to Sutherland, ‘strict
construction refuses to extend the import of words used
in a statute so as to embrace cases or acts which the
words do not clearly describe’.
53. The rule as stated by Mahajan C.J. in Tolaram
Relumal v. State of Bombay, (1954) 1 SCC 961: AIR
1954 SC 496, is that “if two possible and reasonable
constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the
court must lean towards that construction which
exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one
which imposes a penalty. It is not competent to the court
to stretch the meaning of an expression used by the
legislature in order to carry out the intention of the
legislature.” In State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements,
(2005) 1 SCC 368, this Court held that it is a settled rule
of interpretation that where a statute is penal in
character, it must be strictly construed and followed.
The basic rule of strict construction of a penal statute is
that a person cannot be penalised without a clear
reading of the law. Presumptions or assumptions have
no role in the interpretation of penal statutes.
They are to be construed strictly in accordance with the
provisions of law. Nothing can be implied. In such
cases, the courts are not so much concerned with what
might possibly have been intended. Instead, they are
concerned with what has actually been said.
54. We are of the view and the same would be in tune
with the dictum as laid in Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji
Sonawane (supra) that there would have to be some act
or omission which amounts to organised crime after the
2015 Act came into force i.e., 01.12.2019 in respect of
which, the 2026:HHC:3356 accused is sought to be
tried for the first time in the special court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
18 CRR-5853-2025
55. We are in agreement with the view taken by the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of
Jaisingh (supra) that neither the definition of the term
‘organised crime’ nor of the term ‘continuing unlawful
activity’ nor any other provision therein declares any
activity performed prior to the enactment of the
MCOCA to be an offence under the 1999 Act nor the
provision relating to punishment relates to any offence
prior to the date of enforcement of the 1999 Act, i.e.,
24.02.1999. However, by referring to the expression
‘preceding period of ten years’ in Section 2(1) (d), which
is a definition clause of the term ‘continuing unlawful
activity’ inference is sought to be drawn that in fact, it
takes into its ambit the acts done prior to the
enforcement of the 1999 Act as being an offence under
the 1999 Act. The same analogy will apply to the 2015
Act.
56. There is a vast difference between the act or
activity, which is being termed or called an offence
under a statute and such act or activity being taken into
consideration as one of the requisites for taking action
under the statute. For the purpose of organised crime,
there has to be a continuing unlawful activity. There
cannot be continuing unlawful activity unless at least
two charge sheets are found to have been lodged in
relation to the offence punishable with three years’
imprisonment during the period of ten years.
Indisputably, the period of ten years may relate to the
period prior to 01.12.2019 or thereafter. In other words,
it provides that the activities, which were offences
under the law in force at the relevant time and in respect
of which two charge sheets have been filed and the
Court has taken cognisance thereof, during the period of
the preceding ten years, then it will be considered as
continuing unlawful activity on 01.12.2019 or
thereafter. It nowhere by itself declares any activity to
be an offence under the said 2015 Act prior to
01.12.2019. It also does not convert any activity done
prior to 01.12.2019 to be an offence under the said 2015
Act. It merely considers two charge sheets in relation to
the acts which were already declared as offences under
the law in force to be one of the requisites for the
purpose of identifying continuing unlawful activity
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
19 CRR-5853-2025
and/or for the purpose of an action under the said 2015
Act.
57. If the decision of the coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji
Sonawane (supra) is looked into closely along with
other provisions of the Act, the same would indicate
that the offence of ‘organised crime’ could be said to
have been constituted by at least one instance of
continuation, apart from continuing unlawful activity
evidenced by more than one chargesheets in the
preceding ten years. We say so, keeping in mind the
following:
(a) If ‘organised crime’ was synonymous with
‘continuing unlawful activity’, two separate
definitions were not necessary.
(b) The definitions themselves indicate that
the ingredients of the use of violence in such
activity with the objective of gaining
pecuniary benefit are not included in the
definition of ‘continuing unlawful activity’,
but find place only in the definition of
‘organised crime’.
(c) What is made punishable under Section 3
is ‘organised crime’ and not ‘continuing
unlawful activity’.
(d) If ‘organised crime’ were to refer to only
more than one chargesheets filed, the
classification of crime in Section 3(1)(i) and
3(1) (ii) resply on the basis of consequence
of resulting in death or otherwise would have
been phrased differently, namely, by
providing that ‘if any one of such offence has
resulted in the death’, since continuing
unlawful activity requires more than one
offence. Reference to ‘such offence’ in
Section 3(1) implies a specific act or
omission.
(e) As held by this Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal ShahSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1239220 CRR-5853-2025
(supra) continuing unlawful activity
evidenced by more than one chargesheets is
one of the ingredients of the offence of
organised crime and the purpose thereof is to
see the antecedents and not to convict,
without proof of other facts which constitute
the ingredients of Section 2(1)(e) and Section
3, which respectively define commission of
offence of organised crime and prescribe
punishment.
(f) There would have to be some act or
omission which amounts to organised crime
after the Act came into force, in respect of
which the accused is sought to be tried for the
first time, in the Special Court (i.e. has not
been or is not being tried elsewhere).
(g) However, we need to clarify something
important. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji
Sonawane (supra) dealt with the situation
where a person commits no unlawful activity
after the invocation of the MCOCA. In such
circumstances, the person cannot be arrested
under the said Act on account of the offences
committed by him before the coming into
force of the said Act, even if he is found
guilty of the same. However, if the person
continues with the unlawful activities and is
arrested, after the promulgation of the said
Act, then such a person can be tried for the
offence under the said Act. If a person ceases
to indulge in any unlawful act after the said
Act, then he is absolved of the prosecution
under the said Act. But, if he continues with
the unlawful activity, it cannot be said that
the State has to wait till he commits two acts
of which cognizance is taken by the Court
after coming into force. The same principle
would apply, even in the case of the 2015
Act, with which we are concerned.
58. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced
that the dictum as laid by this Court in Shiva alias
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
21 CRR-5853-2025
Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane(supra) does not require any
relook. The dictum in Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji
Sonawane (supra) is the correct exposition of law”
16. Section 111 (1) of the BNS in respect of organised crime is, in
essence, analogous to the provisions of the Maharashtra Control
of Organised Control Act and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism
and Organised Crime Act. The legal principles laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court in its interpretation of organised crime
as defined by the above two state legislations are applicable on all
fours to Section 111 (1) of the BNS. Thus, it is not necessary to
have a further interpretation of the above analogous provision.
17. In view of the above discussion, to attract an offence under
Section 111 (1) of the BNS it is imperative that a group of two or
more persons indulge in any continuing unlawful activity
prohibited by law, which is a cognizable offence punishable with
imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken by any person,
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-sheet has to be filed before a competent Court
within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken
cognizance of such an offence.”
19. Now, come to the facts of this case, in the final report submitted
under Section 193 of BNS, 2023, the reasons for invoking Section 111(4) of
BNS, 2023 have not been disclosed. Only factum has been mentioned that in
the offence registered under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023, the offence under
Section 317(2) and 111(4) of BNS, 2023 have been enhanced. Letter dated
08.05.2025 referred to In-charge, Police Station, Chimanganj Mandi, Ujjain
is to the effect that Crime Nos.276/2025, 297/2025 and 358/2025 under
Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023 requires the document of Crime No.316/2025
registered under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station-
Chimanganj Mandi, Ujjain.
20. In addition, vide letter dated 12.12.2025, the reasons for invocation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
22 CRR-5853-2025
of Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023 has been explained as below:-
करण के आरोपीगणो ारा थाना िचमनगंज म ड उ जैन म दे वास म घटना करना वीकार कया जसक
सूचना िमलने पर दनांक 08.05.25 को क य जेल उ जैन से आरोपीय के जला जेल म दा खल होने क
जानकार ा कर ीमान के यायालय से आरोपीगणो का ोड शन वारं ट जार कराया गया आरोपीगण दनांक
16.5.2025 को ोड शन वारं ट के पालन म आरोपीगण 1 अशोक पता रतन लाल चोहान उ 29 साल िनवासी
पप य नोलाया थाना मोहन बडो दया जला शाजापुर हाल संजय नगर धरमपुर ई दौर 2-भारत पता िशवलाल
राठौर उ 35 साल िनवासी इं गो रया थाना गरोठ जला मंदसौर , 3-परवेज उफ अ जु पता हबीब नूर उ 34
साल िनवासी नसीब होटल वाली गली बेगम बाग उ जैन 4- सोनू उफ अरबाज पता नासीर खॉन उ 32 साल
िनवासी गुलमोहर कॉलोनी उ जैन, 5- राजा उफ मुज फर पता मोह मद खालीक उ 20 साल िनवासी स ाट
कालोनी उ जैन को ीमान के यायालय हा जर कया गया जस पर आरोपीगणो क थाना औ. े के अपराध
सदर मे अव यकता होने से आरोपीगणो क फामल िगर तार क अनुमित ा क जाकर फामल िगर तार क
गई बाद धाने के उिन वजय िसंह बेस साहब याया उप थत हु ये जनके ारा आरोपीगणो का दनांक
20.05.2025 तक का पीआर ा कर आरोपीगणो का धारा 23 (ग) सा य वधान के मेमोरे डम लेख कया
गया। जसमे उ होने संगठ त होकर एक िगरोह के प म आसपास के े दे वास, उ जैन , शाजापुर म एक ह
तरह क चोर करने क घटनाओं को अंजाम दया जाना बताया एवं चोर कया म क ु ा को अपने साथीयो को
बेचकर धन अ जत करना बताया। करण म मेमो के आधार पर धारा 111(4),317(2) बी.एन.एस को इजाफा
कया गया। रकण म आरोपी अशोक ओर परवेज क िनशादे ह से परवेज के गोडाउन से करण म चोर क
01 बेटर भी ज क गई है ।
आरोप अशोक ने उसके मेम म बताया क वह चोर क बेटर य के सी रयल न बर िनकाल दे ते थे आरोपीगण
को दनांक 20.5 2025 को माननीय यायालय पेश कया गया जहां से आरोपीगणो का दनांक 02.06.2025
तक का का ले.आर. वीकृ त होने से के य जेल भे गण उ जैन दा खल कया गया। आरोपीगण वतमान म
के य जेल म िन है यह क करण म मेमो के आधार पर आरोपी अशोक ितलक उफ अ सु सेठ पता
िचमनलाल उ 54 साल िनवासी 24 िनजातपुरा, राय धरमशाला के पास थाना कोतवाली उ जैन को दनांक
08.6.2025 को िगरफतार माननीय यायालय से दनांक 11.6.2025 तक का पीआर ा कया गया एवं
करण म शेष बची 03 बेटर यां आरोपी के गोडाउन से ज क गई। आरोपी वतमान म जला जेल म िन है
यह क करण म फरार 02 आरोपीय क तलाश जार है । करण वतमान म संपूण ववेचना क जाकर करण
म चालान 553/25 दनांक 12.08.25 का कता कया जाकर माननीय यायालय म फौमुनं 1756/25 दनांक
13.08.25 पर दज होकर माननीय यायालय म वचाराधीन है ।
नामः अशोक ितलक उफ अ सु सेठ पता िचमनलाल उ 54 साल िनवासी 24 िनजातपुरा, राय धरमशाला के
पास थाना कोतवाली उ जैन का आपराधीक रकाड
. अपराध धारा ववरण थाना चालान मांक फौ.मु.नं.
मांक
1. 317/25 238,303(2),317(5) थाना िचमनगंज यायालय म वचराधीन
मंड जला उ जैन है
2. 358/25 111(4), 303(2), 317(2) औ ै दे वास 552/12.08.25 1752/13.08.25
बीएनएस यायालय म वचाराधीन
है
3. 276/25 111(4), 303(2), 317(2) औ ै दे वास 553/12.08.25 1756/13.08.25
बीएनएस यायालय म वचाराधीन
है
4. 79/25 303(2), 317(2) जीवाजीगंज जला यायालय म वचाराधीन
बीएनएस उ जैन है
5. 297/25 111(4), 303(2), 317(2) औ ै दे वास 554/12.08.25 1757/13.08.25
बीएनएस यायालय म वचाराधन
है
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
23 CRR-5853-2025
21. The reasons mentioned by prosecution referred in para nos.19 and
20 of this order for invoking Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023 does not satisfy
the standard of Sub-para no.17 of Para no.18 of this order. Accordingly, the
learned trial Court has committed error in framing charges against the
revision petitioner under section 111(4) of BNS, 2023 because what is stated
is criminal record against the revision petitioner are of the same date and
those cannot be termed as previous cases in respect of which cognizance has
been taken. Accordingly, the learned trial Court has committed error in
framing charges against the revision petitioner under Section 111(4) of BNS,
2023. If the prosecution collects the material sufficient to justify invocation
of Section 111 of BNS, 2023 against the revision petitioner then the same
may be submitted before the Court through further investigation and filing
supplementary final report and may prayed for additional charge. At present,
the charges under Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023 against the revision
petitioner is not sustainable.
22. The learned trial Court may consider the applicability of charges
under Section 112 of BNS, 2023 that provide for petty organized crime and
the pre-conditions like section 111 of BNS, 2023 does not apply.
23. In view of the aforesaid, this revision petition is partly allowed to
the extent that charges under Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023 framed against
the present revision petitioner are set aside and the learned trial Court is
directed to consider the applicability of charges under Section 112 of BNS,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12392
24 CRR-5853-2025
2023 after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties and may pass a
reasoned order on its own merits of the record without being influenced with
the finding of this Court.
24. Accordingly, the revision petition stands partly allowed and
disposed off.
25. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court concerned
for information and necessary action.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
