Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hiralal vs State Of M P Through P S Crime Branch … on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12370
1 CRR-3881-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3881 of 2025
HIRALAL
Versus
STATE OF M P THROUGH P S CRIME BRANCH INDORE
Appearance:
Shri Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Palash Choudhary, counsel for the objector.
Shri Prashant Jain appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].
Heard 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 13.05.2025
passed in ST No.85/2025 by 33rd ASJ, Indore whereby the charges under
Section 318(4) read with /3(5), 316(5) read with 3(5) and 111(4) read with
3(5) of BNS, 2023 have been framed against the revision petitioner in a case
arising out of the Crime No.113/2024 registered at Police Station Crime
Branch, Indore.
2. Facts in brief are that the aforesaid Crime no.113/2024 was
registered on 30.10.2024 on the complaint of Amit S/o Prakash Upadhayay
with allegations that the members of whatsap group UBS Securities
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12370
2 CRR-3881-2025
contacted the revision petitioner with a proposal to make investment in the
stock market and got transferred an amount of Rs,.26,55,000/- in different
accounts. The offence was registered against the unknown persons. After the
investigation, final report under Section 193 of BNSS, 2023 was submitted
against three persons namely Vinay Yadav R/o Ratlam and Rahual Yadav
and Heeralal both Resident of Udaypur, Rajasthan and the investigation was
kept pending against other co-accused persons under Section 318(4), 316(4),
114(4), 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
2. Vide order dated 13.05.2025, the charges were framed. Challenging
the framing of charges, this revision petition has been preferred on the
ground that the framing of charges is based on the surmises and
conjunctures, the learned trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction to
shift the evidence in connection with the present applicant/revision
petitioner. There is neither any call record between the petitioner and other
co-accused persons nor any incriminating material has been seized from the
revision petitioner. Confessional statements of the revision petitioner as well
as other co-accused persons are not even admissible in framing of charges
against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is law graduate and has
been charged for Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023 which is an organized crime
and is not applicable to the present applicant/revision petition as there are no
criminal antecedents of the present revision petitioner and thus, it is the first
offence registered against the revision petitioner. He relied upon Kashmiara
Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; AIR 1952 SC 159, Ghulam Hassan
Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Others; 2022 SCC OnLine SC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12370
3 CRR-3881-2025
913; Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal; (1979) 3 SCC 4, Deepak
Bhai Jagdish Chandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat; (2019) 16 SCC 547, Sajjan
Kumar vs. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368.
3. Heard.
4. Counsel for the State as well as counsel for the objector has opposed
the prayer.
5. Final report submitted under Section 193 of BNSS, 2023 keeping
the investigation pending as 90 days of custody was going to be completed
reveal the role of the present revision petitioner. The revision petitioner came
into contact with Rahul Yadav and Vinay Mewada (co-accused persons) in
the year 2023. Vinay Mewada asked for procuring the bank accounts for a
payment of Rs.10,000/- per bank account to the present revision petitioner
who consulted regarding the bank accounts with co-accused Rahul Yadav
and promised Rahul Yadav to pay Rs.5,000/- per bank account. Thereafter,
Rahul Yadav provided 04 bank accounts to the revision petitioner and the
revision petitioner further provided those accounts to Vinay Mawada and the
amount of consideration received from Vinay Mewada was sent to Rahul
Yadav after deducting his share. On 19.06.2024, Rahul Yadav provided the
information of bank accounts open in SBI Bank alongwith the cheque book,
ATM Cards, SIM No.62322-39088, Password of Email
[email protected] and Bank Login ID through parcel to Heeralal.
They all were in contact through different social media platforms and were
deleting the chat history regularly. Vinay Mewada has made witness to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12370
4 CRR-3881-2025
himself.
6 . 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, and
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12370
5 CRR-3881-2025
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
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.”
07. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:123706 CRR-3881-2025
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.
(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 atrial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court
could form an opinion that the accused might haveSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:123707 CRR-3881-2025
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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12370
8 CRR-3881-2025
discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see
whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.”
8. On perusal of the statement of Vinay Mewada recorded on
14.12.2024, satisfy the standard of prima facie case for framing the charges
under Sections 318(4) read with /3(5) and 316(5) read with 3(5) of BNS,
2023 against him. Accordingly, the learned trial Court has not committed
any error in framing the charges against the revision petitioner under
Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) and 316(5) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
Hence, the findings in this regard is affirmed.
9. Now, the question arises whether the charges under Section 111(4)
read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023 can be framed against the revision
petitioner or not?
10. 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;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12370
9 CRR-3881-2025
(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.-
(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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12370
10 CRR-3881-2025
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 be
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.
11. 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;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12370
11 CRR-3881-2025
(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.
11. 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
years, with the Court having taken cognizance for those offences.
12. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1237012 CRR-3881-2025
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
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 offenceSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1237013 CRR-3881-2025
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:
“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 wasSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1237014 CRR-3881-2025
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
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 ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1237015 CRR-3881-2025
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
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,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1237016 CRR-3881-2025
(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.
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12370
17 CRR-3881-2025
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
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 theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1237018 CRR-3881-2025
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 Shah
(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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12370
19 CRR-3881-2025
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
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 CourtSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1237020 CRR-3881-2025
within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken
cognizance of such an offence.”
13. Now, come to the facts of this case, in the final report submitted
under Setion 193 of BNSS, 2023, the applicability of Section 111 of BNS,
2023 has been justified on the ground as mentioned below:-
सदर अपराध मे कई अ य आरोपीय के नाम सामने आ रहे है एवं आवेदक क
रािश हड़पने के िलए कमिशयल बक खातो का भी उपयोग कया जाक यह एक
संग ठत सायबर अपराध है । उ अपराध म पूव मे जन आरो पयो को िगर तार
कया जा चुका है उनक िगर तार से 90 दवस क अविध शी ह पूण होने जा
रह है एवं अपराध म अभी अ य कोई आरोपीयो का िगर तार कया जाना शेष है
अत: िगर तारशुदा उपरो आरोपीगणो के व धारा 193 (9) बीएनएसएस मे
अनुसं धान जार रखते हु ये चालान कता करने क अनुमित ीमान सहायक पुिलस
आयु महोदय अपराध शाखा इं दौर, मान अित. पुिलस उपायु महोदय अपराध
शाखा इं दौर , ीमान पुिलस उपायु महोदय अपराध शाखा इं दौर से ा क गई
एवं करण क ववेचना म अिधक समय लगने क संभावना होने से माननीय
यायालय को ववेचना हे तु अित र समय दान करने हे तु ितवेदन े षत कया
गया है । अत: करण म अिभयु गण वनय यादव, राहु ल यादव, ह रालाल अह र
के व धारा 193(9) बीएनएसएस के तहत ववेचना जार रखते हु ये चालान
मांक 04/2025 दनांक 16/01/2025 का कता कया जाकर वा ते यायाथ
आरोपप माननीय यायालय के सम सादर े षत है
14. Vide order dated 01.12.2025, the State was directed to address the
Court that “how the explanation under Section 111(1) of BNS, 2023, applies
in this case and thereafter vide order dated 12.01.2026, a notice was also
issued to the victim to address this Court. The victim was provided with legal
assistance. There was no substantial inputs on behalf of the victim regarding
the applicability of Section 111 of BNS, 2023 in this case and the State has
justified the applicability of Section 111 of BNS, 2023 with the explanation
as below:-
करण सदर क ववेचना के दौरान एसबीआई बक के खाता .43068664307 ( SBIN003051) के ांजे शन
के आईप ए े स क जानकार ा क गई जसमे पाया गया क उ एसबीआई बक को मो.नं. 6262239088,
6378264078, 7024327935, 9079267010, 6376216620 एवं अ य वीपीएन ए े स के ारा इं टरनेट के
मा यम से लािगन करना पाया गया जसक ववेचना करते मो.नं. 6232239088 करण म िगर तारशुदा
आरोप वनय यादव एवं मो.नं. 6378263408 करण म िगर तारशुदा आरोपी राहु ल यादव का पाया गया ,
अ य मो.नं. 7024327935, 9079267010, 6376216620 एवं बीपीएन ए े स के लािगनकता धारको क
ववेचना म आए त यो के अनुसार तलाशी के हरसंभव यास कए जा रहे है ।
उ ॉड म उपयोग बक खाते/मोबाईल नंबर/िलंक के खलाफ एनसीआरपी पोटल के मा यम से चेक
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1237021 CRR-3881-2025
करने पर।। रा यो म 28 िशकायत दज होना पाया गया है , जनके आवेदको एंव संबंिधत पुिलस अिधकार से
चचा करते 01. थाना डायघर जला ठाणे महारा म अप, ं .1588/24 धारा 318(4) बीएनएस , धारा 66(सी) ,
धारा 66(ड ) आई.ट . ए ट 2000 , 02 . थाना सायबराबाद जला सायबराबाद रा य तेलगांना मे अपराध ं
4896/24 धारा 318 (4) बीएनएस, धारा 66 (ड ) आई.ट . ए ट 2000-2008 , 03, थाना ट एससीएसबी जला
सायबर ाइम पुिलस टे शन रा य तेलगांना म अपराध ं .26/24 धारा 318(4), 319, 338 बीएनएस, धारा 66
(ड ) आई.ट .ए ट 2008, 04, थाना सायबर ाईम पुिलस टे शन जालघर िसट जला जालंधर रा य पंजाब मे
अपराध ं .3/24 धारा 420 भाद व 1860, धारा 66(ड ) आई.ट . ए ट 2008 का पंजीब होकर ववेचना मे है ।
अलग-अलग रा य से एनसीआरपी पोटल पर दज 28 िशकायत िन निल खत है –
. एनसीआरपी पोटल पर िशकायत आवेदक का नाम/िनवासी ॉड रािश
.
1. 20207240028782 य नी रे ड िनवासी -अ दे श
2. 21307240029324 द प कुमार िनवासी -ह रयाणा 2510428/-
3. 21607240035585 ितलकराज िनवासी-कनाटका 213000/-
4. 21907240071018 फरहान खान िनवासी -महारा 18,50,000/-
5. 22108240019241 काश कुमार िनवास-म य दे श 2600000/-
6. 22507240011099 सलोनी िनवासी-पंजाब 7,20,0000/-
7. 22507240011821 आशीष िनवासी-पंजाब 550100/-
8. 2290240055690 क याण कुमार िनवासी -तिमलनाडू 181727/-
9. 22909240068450 कृ णकुमार िनवासी-तिमलनाडू 26,00,000/-
10. 23108240086000 पवन कुमार िनवासी-यूपी
11. 23108240086124 योित िनवासी-यूपी 10,00,000/-
12. 23707240036466 ीहर िनवासी-तेलंगाना
13. 30209240021212 के य पा िनवासी-अ दे श 95,00,000/-
14. 30209240021232 के य पा िनवासी-अ दे श
15. 30608240002786 मनद प कौर िनवासी-चंड गड
16. 31507240017176 मोह मद सफ िनवासी -केरल
17. 3160724005746 ीधर बाबू िनवासी-कनाटका 3800000/-
18. 31608240057437 नीरमोह मद िनवासी-कनाटका 35,000/-
19. 31608240058575 रमेश बाबू िनवासी-कनाटका 7,00,000/-
20. 31608240058694 वजयल मी िनवासी -कनाटका 8,75,50,000/-
21. 31608240060533 शसीकला िनवासी-कनाटका
22. 31907240107965 मायरा महे श िनवासी -महारा
23. 32708240040629 धीरज पुरो हत िनवासी-राज थान 50,000/-
24. 32708240040649 धीरज िनवासी-राज थान 50,000/-
25. 32708240040659 धीरज िनवासी-राज थान 50,000/-
26. 33708240040753 संशाक िनवासी-तेलगाना
27. 33708240042386 ी काश िनवासी-तेलगाना
28. 33708240042706 के धानूजय िनवासी-तेलगाना 8,41,969/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12370
22 CRR-3881-2025
सायबर ॉड मे उपयोग टे ट बक आफ इं डया मे खाता . 43068664307 मे 6,54,58,77/- पये (छ:
करोड चोपन लाख अ ठावन हजार स पये), Axis Bank के खाता ं . 923020004041317 म
1,26,69,688/- पये (एक करोड छ बीस लाख छ: सौ अ यासी पये) , Indusind Bank के खाता ं .
201029732800 म 40,61,1092/- (चालीस लाख इ सट हजार बान वे पये) पय क ॉड रािश जमा
होना पायी गयी है ।
15. The State has also scrutinized the applicability of Section 111 (4)
of BNS, 2023 on the present revision petitioner and submitted the same as
under:-
1. यह है क आरोपी ह रालाल एवं अ य ारा इ वे टमट पर अ छा ा फट दलाने के नाम पर
आनलाईन एक िलंक https://apps.apple.com/hk/app/ubs/id6504154109 भेजकर USB
िस यो रट नामकएक ए लीकेशन डाउनलोड करवाकर फ रयाद को हा सअप नंबर
9558181539, 8309980909, 7358270952, 9558181539, 9791510234, 7587522318 के
धारको के ारा लािगन आईड , पासवड बनाकर संगठ त होकर विभ न ॉड बक खात म कुल
26,55,000/- पये जमा करवाकर धोखाधड का रत क गयी है ।
2. यह है क आरोपी हरालाल एवं अ य ारा ॉड मे उपयोग बक खाते/मोबाईल नंबर/िलंक के
खलाफ एनसीआरसी पोटल के मा यम से चेक करने पर 11 रा यो म 28 िशकायत दज होना
पाया गया है , जनके आवेदको एंव संबिधत पुिलस अिधकार से चचा करते0 1 . थाना डायघर जला ठाणे महारा मे अप , ं . 1588/24 धारा 318 (4)
बीएनएस, धारा 66 (सी), धारा 66 (ड ) आई.ट .ए ट 2000,
02. थाना सायबराबाद जला सायबराबाद रा य तेलगांना मे अपराध . 4896/24
धारा धारा 318(4) बीएनएस, धारा 66 (ड ) आई.ट . ए ट 2000-2008,
03. थाना ट एससीएसबी जला सायबर ाईम पुिलस टे शन रा य तेलगांना मे
अपराध ं . 26/24 धारा धारा 3,18(4), 319, 338 बीएनएस , धारा 66 (ड )
आई.ट . ए ट 2008,
04. थाना सायबर ाईम पुिलस टे शन जालघर िसट जला जालंधर रा य पंजाब
मे अपराध ं . 03/24 धारा 420 भाद व 1860, धारा 66 (ड ) आई.ट . ए ट
2008 का पंजीब द कया गया है ।
3 . यह है क ॉड म उपयोग टे ट बक आफ इं डया म खाता . 43068664307 म
6,54,58,77/- पये (छः करोड चोपन लाख अ टावन हजार स र पये) Axis Bank के खाता
. 923020004041317 मे 1,26,69,688/- पये (एक करोड छ बीस लाख छः सौ अ यासी
पये), Indusind Bank के खाता ं . 201029732800 म 40,61,092/- (चालीस लाख इ सट
हजार बान वे पये) पये लोगो के साथ धोखाधड का रत कर ॉड रािश जमा होना पायी गयी
है ।
16. The reasons mentioned by prosecution referred in para nos.13 14
and 15 of this order for invoking Section 111(4) of BNS, 2023, at the mostSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12370
23 CRR-3881-2025
reflects that the complaints or offence registered are under investigation. they
does not satisfy the standard of Sub-para no.17 of Para no.12 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. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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,
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.
19. Accordingly, the revision petition stands partly allowed and
disposed off.
20. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court concerned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 30-04-2026
19:05:05
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12370
24 CRR-3881-2025
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
