2021 INSC 0658
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.      OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO._________ OF 2021)
(@ DIARY NO.13309 OF 2021)
KAVITHA LANKESH        …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.        …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.        OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO. 5387/2021)
J U D G M E N T
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.
1. These   appeals   emanate   from   the   judgment   and   order   dated
22.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in
Writ   Petition   No.9717   of   2019   (GM­RES),   whereby   the   High   Court
partly   allowed   the   writ   petition   and   quashed   the   order   bearing

2
No.CRM(1)/KCOCA/01/2018   dated   14.08.2018   issued   by   the
Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City according prior approval to
invoke   offences   under   Section   3   of   the   Karnataka   Control   of
Organised   Crimes   Act,   2000 1
  against   Mohan   Nayak.N   (private
respondent   herein) 2
  being   crime   registered   with   Rajarajeshwari
Nagar Police Station as FIR No.221/2017 dated 05.09.2017 and to
enquire into the same.
2. Shorn   of   unnecessary   details,   be   it   noted   that   the   present
appeals pertain to the incident which had occurred on 05.09.2017
in   which   one   Gauri   Lankesh,   who   was   a   leading   journalist,   was
shot   dead   by   certain   unknown   assailants   near   her   house   at
Rajarajeshwari   Nagar,   Bengaluru.     Her   sister­Kavitha   Lankesh
(appellant herein) rushed to the spot and after seeing her sister in
a   precarious   condition,   immediately   lodged   a   complaint   with   the
Rajarajeshwari   Nagar   Police   Station,   which   came   to   be   registered
for   offences   punishable   under   Section   302   of   the   IPC   and   Section
25   of   the   Arms   Act,   1959 3
  being   FIR   No.221/2017   dated
1  fo r short, ‘the 2000 Act’
2   Writ   Petitioner   before   the   High   Court;   not   named   in   FIR   No.221/2017   and
preliminary   chargesheet;   shown   as   accused   No.8   in   the   prior   approval   and   as
accused No.11 in the additional chargesheet.
3   for short, ‘the Arms Act’

3
05.09.2017.     The   investigation   of   the   crime   was   thereafter
entrusted to the Special Investigating Team 4
 on 06.09.2017.  
3. In the course of investigation, a preliminary chargesheet came
to   be   filed   against   the   concerned   accused   on   29.05.2018.     The
crime was then committed to the City Civil and Sessions Judge as
CC   No.14578   of   2018.     The   Investigating   Officer   had   sought
permission   of   the   Magistrate   to   file   an   additional   chargesheet
under   Section   173(8)   of   the   Criminal   Procedure   Code   as   the
investigation   was   still   underway.     The   private   respondent­Mohan
Nayak.N came to be arrested on 18.07.2018 in connection with the
stated   crime.     The   further   investigation   revealed   that   the   accused
persons   in   Special   CC   No.872   of   2018   were   involved   in   organized
crime as a syndicate which attracted the provisions of Section 3 of
the   2000   Act.     The   SIT   submitted   that   report   to   the   Chief
Investigating   Officer,   who   then   sought   approval   of   the
Commissioner   of   Police,   Bengaluru   City   vide   proposal   dated
07.08.2018,   to   invoke   Section   3   of   the   2000   Act   concerning
organized crime.
4  f or short, ‘the SIT'

4
4. After   due   consideration   of   the   stated   report   and   the   entire
investigation   papers   and   record   of   evidence   collected   by   the   SIT,
the   Commissioner   of   Police,   Bengaluru   City   in   exercise   of   powers
under  Section 24(1)(a) of the 2000 Act accorded   prior  approval for
invoking   Section   3   of   the   2000   Act   in   respect   of   crime   being   FIR
No.221/2017, vide communication dated 14.08.2018.
5. After   completion   of   the   investigation,   the   Additional   Director
General   of   Police   and   Commissioner   of   Police,   Bengaluru   City
accorded  sanction   under   Section   24(2)  of   the   2000   Act.     The   final
police report then came to be filed on 23.11.2018 before the Special
Court   at   Bengaluru,   for   offences   punishable   under   Sections   302,
120B,   114,   118,   109,   201,   203,   204   and   35   of   the   IPC.     Further
charges   were   also   invoked   under   Sections   25(1),   25(1B)   and   27(1)
of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the 2000
Act.     The   additional   chargesheet   came   to   be   filed   against   named
accused   Nos.1   to   18   before   the   Principal   City   Civil   and   Sessions
Judge   Court   (CCH­1)   in   Special   C.C.No.872   of   2018   under   the
stated provisions, in which private respondent­Mohan Nayak.N was

5
named   as   accused.     The   Court   then   took   cognizance   on
17.12.2018.
6. It   is   only   after   the   cognizance   was   taken   by   the   competent
Court,   the   private   respondent­Mohan   Nayak.N   was   advised   to   file
Writ   Petition   No.9717   of   2019   before   the   High   Court   on
25.02.2019, for the following reliefs:
“PRAYER
WHEREFORE,   the   Petitioner   above   named   most
respectfully   prays   that   this   Hon’ble   Court   may   be
pleased to;
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
writ   or   order   or   direction,   quashing   the   order
dated:   14.08.2018   passed   by   the   third
Respondent   herein   in   No.CRM(1)
KCOCA/01/2018   thereby   passing   an   order   of
approval   under   section   24(1)(a)   of   the   Karnataka
Control   of   Organised   Crimes   Act,   2000   (herein
after referred to as KCOCA Act for short) to invoke
the   section   3   of   the   said   Act   in   Crime
No.221/2017   registered   by   the   fifth   Respondent
herein   for   the   offences   punishable   under   section
302,   120B,   118,   114   read   with   section   35   of   the
Indian   Penal   Code   and   sections   3   and   25   of   the
Indian   Arms   Act   and   also   the   additional   charge
sheet   filed   by   the   fourth   Respondent   herein
against the Petitioner in so far as section 3(i), 3(ii),
3(iii)   and   3(iv)   of   the   KCOCA   Act,   which   are
produced as  ANNEXURES­A & B  respectively; and
(b) Grant   such   other   and   further   reliefs   as   deems   fit
in the circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice and equity.”

6
7. The   High   Court   vide   impugned   judgment   noted   that   it   was
called   upon   to   examine   whether   the   impugned   order   dated
14.08.2018   issued   by   the   Commissioner   of   Police,   Bengaluru   City
in   exercise   of   power   under   Section   24(1)(a)   of   the   2000   Act
according   prior   approval   to   invoke   Section   3   of   the   2000   Act   for
investigation   against   concerned   accused   including   writ   petitioner­
Mohan Nayak.N is legal and valid.  In the context of that relief, the
High Court noted the submissions made by the counsel for the writ
petitioner in the following words:
“7.     Sri   Gautham   S.   Bharadwaj,   learned   Counsel   for
the   petitioner   challenges   the   order   Annexure­A
granting   permission   under   Section   24(1)(a)   of   the   Act
against the petition on the following grounds:
(i) The   petitioner   was   not   involved   in   continuing
unlawful  activity  as  contemplated  in  Section  2(1)(d)  of
the Act;
(ii) The   charge   sheet   allegations   do   not   attract
organized crime as contemplated under Section 2(e) of
the Act; &
(iii) By   such   unlawful   invocation   of   Section   24(1)(a)
of the Act, personal liberty of the petitioner is violated,
thereby the order  Annexure­A is violative of Article 21
of the Constitution of India, 1950.”
8. The   High   Court   also   adverted   to   the   three   decisions   pressed
into   service   by   the   writ   petitioner­Mohan   Nayak.N,   namely,   State

7
of   Maharashtra   &   Ors.   vs.   Lalit   Somdatta   Nagpal   &   Anr. 5
,
State   (NCT   of   Delhi)   vs.   Brijesh   Singh   @   Arun   Kumar   &   Anr. 6
and  Muniraju R. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. 7
.
9. The   High   Court   then   proceeded   to   note   the   objections   taken
by the prosecution in the following words:
“9. Sri   H.S.   Chandramouli,   learned   Special   Public
Prosecutor   opposes   the   petition   on   the   following
grounds:
(i) There   is   no   dispute   that   accused   Nos.7   and   10
were   involved   in   two   criminal   cases   each,   accused
Nos.9, 1 to 4 were involved in one criminal case each.
The   said   offences   were   cognizable   offences   and   the
cognizance was taken in those cases;
(ii) If   one   of   the   members   of   the   organized   crime
syndicate   is   involved   in   more   than   one   case   and   the
charge   sheet   was   filed,   Section   2(d)   of   the   Act   is
attracted.     Therefore   even   if   the   petitioner   was   not
involved   in   other   cases,   respondent   No.3   has   rightly
invoked Section 2(d) of the Act;
(iii) Annexure­A   shows   that   the   approval   was
granted for investigation on due application of mind;
(iv) After   the   charge   sheet   was   filed,   the   trial   Court
has taken cognizance of the offences and the petitioner
has   not   sought   quashing   of   the   charge   sheet   or   the
order   taking   cognizance,   therefore   challenge   to
Annexure­A is not maintainable;
5  (2007) 4 SCC 171
6  (2017) 10 SCC 779
7   Criminal   Petition   No.391   of   2019   decided   on   05.02.2019   by   the   High   Court   of
Karnataka at Bengaluru

8
(v) The   petitioner   filed   Crl.P.No.8325/2018   seeking
bail.   In that petition, he raised the same contentions.
This   Court   while   passing   the   order   rejected   the   said
contention   and   that   order   has   attained   finality.
Therefore   it   is   not   open   to   the   petitioner   to   challenge
Annexure­A on the same grounds;
(vi) The   petitioner   did   not   file   any   application   for
discharge   on   the   same   grounds,   under   such
circumstances, Annexure­A is vexatious; &
(vii) The   judgments   relied   upon   by   learned   counsel
for the petitioner are not applicable.”
The   High   Court   then   adverted   to   the   decisions   relied   upon   by   the
prosecution,   namely,   Vinod   G.   Asrani   vs.   State   of
Maharashtra 8
,   John   D’Souza   vs.   Assistant   Commissioner   of
Police 9
,   Prasad  Shrikant   Purohit   vs.   State   of  Maharashtra   &
Anr. 10
,   Govind   Sakharam   Ubhe   vs.   State   of   Maharashtra 11
,
Digvijay  Saroha  vs.  State 12
  and   K.T.  Naveen  Kumar  @ Naveen
vs. State of Karnataka 13
.
8  (2007) 3 SCC 633 
9  Manu/MH/0797/2007
10  (2015) 7 SCC 440
11  2009 SCC OnLine Bom 770
12  2019 SCC OnLine Del 10324
13   Crl.   P.No.5507/2019   decided   on   10.01.2020   by   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   at
Bengaluru

9
10. After   having   noted   the   rival   submissions,   the   High   Court
posed a question to itself whether Section 3 of the 2000 Act applies
to the writ petitioner­Mohan Nayak.N?
11. The   High   Court   noted   the   role   of   the   writ   petitioner­Mohan
Nayak.N,   as   imputed   by   the   prosecution,   that   he   had   acted   on
instructions   of   co­accused   Amol   Kale 14
  to   take  a  house   on   rent  in
Tagachukuppe,   Kumbalgodu   in   the   guise   of   running   an
acupressure   clinic,   which   was   in   fact   meant   to   accommodate   the
members of the syndicate and even after commission of murder of
Gauri   Lankesh,   he   harboured   the   actual   assailants   therein.     The
High   Court   then   noted   the   fact   that   accused   Nos.3,  5,   7   to   9,  11,
13  to  16  were  not   chargesheeted  in  any  single  case  for   cognizable
offences,   nor   cognizance   of   such   offences   had   been   taken   by   a
competent court against them as required under Section 2(1)(d) of
the 2000 Act.  The High Court then noticing the exposition in  Lalit
Somdatta   Nagpal 15
,   Brijesh   Singh 16
  and   Muniraju   R. 17
,   opined
14   Not   named   in   FIR   No.221/2017   and   in   the   preliminary   chargesheet;   shown   as
accused   No.3   in   the   prior   approval   and   as   accused   No.1   in   the   additional
chargesheet.
15  supra at Footnote No.5
16  supra at Footnote No.6
17  supra at Footnote No.7

10
that   in   absence   of   at   least   two   chargesheets   filed   against   the   writ
petitioner­Mohan   Nayak.N   in   respect   of   specified   offences   and   of
which   cognizance   had   been   taken   by   the   competent   Court   as
required   to   attract   the   offence   of   organized   crime,   he   was   not
engaged in continuing unlawful activity.   On this finding, the High
Court concluded that the writ petitioner­Mohan Nayak.N cannot be
proceeded further and thus, partly allowed the writ petition by not
only quashing  the order dated 14.08.2018 of the Commissioner of
Police, Bengaluru City according approval for invoking Section 3 of
the   2000   Act,   but   also   the   chargesheet   filed   against   the   writ
petitioner­Mohan   Nayak.N   for   offences   punishable   under   Section
3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the 2000 Act.  As regards the decisions
relied upon by the prosecution, the High Court noted that the same
were of no avail to the prosecution.
12. Being aggrieved, the complainant­Kavitha Lankesh as well as
the   State   of   Karnataka   have   filed   separate   appeals   before   this
Court   questioning   the   correctness   of   the   view   taken   by   the   High
Court.     The   arguments   as   canvassed   before   the   High   Court   have

11
been reiterated by both sides including reliance has been placed on
the reported decisions referred hitherto.
13. We   have   heard   Mr.   Huzefa   Ahmedi,   learned   Senior   Counsel
appearing   for   the   appellant­Kavitha   Lankesh,   Mr.   V.N.
Raghupathy,   learned   Counsel   for   the   State   of   Karnataka   and   Mr.
Basava   Prabhu   S.   Patil,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for   the
private respondent.
14. To   recapitulate   the   relevant   factual   background,   be   it   noted
that   FIR   under   Section   154   of   the   Criminal   Procedure   Code   was
registered   with   Rajarajeshwari   Nagar   Police   Station   being   Crime
No.221/2017   dated   05.09.2017   initially   for   offences   punishable
under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at the
instance   of   the   appellant­Kavitha   Lankesh   against   unknown
persons.     Considering   the   nature   of   offence,   the   Government   of
Karnataka   constituted   a   SIT   vide   order   dated   06.09.2017   headed
by   Mr.   B.K.   Singh,   IPS,   IGP,   Intelligence,   Bengaluru.     Mr.   M.N.
Anucheth,   IPS,   DCP   (West)   was   nominated   as   the   Chief
Investigating   Officer   of   the   SIT.     The   SIT   after   taking   over   the

12
investigation submitted preliminary  chargesheet dated 29.05.2018
against   accused   K.T.   Naveen   Kumar   @   Naveen 18
  before   the
concerned Court for offences punishable under Sections 302, 114,
118,   120B   and   35   of   the   IPC   read   with   Sections   3   and   25   of   the
Arms   Act.     The   preliminary   chargesheet   was   accompanied   with
documents and list of witnesses.  On the basis of material collected
during   further   investigation,   report   dated   07.08.2018   was
submitted   by   the   Chief   Investigating   Officer   of   the   SIT   to   the
Commissioner   of   Police,   Bengaluru   City   for   according   prior
approval for invoking provisions of the 2000 Act in respect of crime
already   registered.     The   Commissioner   of   Police,   Bengaluru   City
after   going   through   the   stated   report,   entire   investigation   papers
and   record   of   evidence   collected   until   then,   was   satisfied   that   the
accused   Parshuram   Wagmore 19
,   Amith   Baddi 20
,   and   Ganesh
18   Not   named   in   FIR   No.221/2017;   shown   as   accused   No.1   in   the   preliminary
chargesheet   and   in   prior   approval   and   as   accused   No.17   in   the   additional
chargesheet.
19   Not   named   in   FIR   No.221/2017   and   in   the   preliminary   chargesheet;   shown   as
accused   No.7   in   the   prior   approval   and   as   accused   No.2   in   the   additional
chargesheet.
20   Not   named   in   FIR   No.221/2017   and   in   the   preliminary   chargesheet;   shown   as
accused   No.10   in   the   prior   approval   and   as   accused   No.4   in   the   additional
chargesheet.

13
Miskin 21
  were   involved   in   more   than   two   specified   offences   in   the
past   through   their   illegal   actions   of   sedition,   promoting   enmity
between   two   groups   of   people,   inciting   communal   violence,
assaulting and injuring public servants, damaging public property
and causing grave disturbance to public order.  The Commissioner
of   Police   also   recorded   his   satisfaction   that   K.T.   Naveen   Kumar   @
Naveen,   Sujith   Kumar 22
,   Amol   Kale   and   Amit   Degvekar 23
,   have
jointly   committed   an   offence   having   punishment   of   three   years   or
more   within   the   preceding   period   of   ten   years   and   the
chargesheet(s)   had   been   filed   against   them   before   the   competent
Court and cognizance thereof has been taken.   He then formed an
opinion   that   these   accused   had   jointly   conspired   to   assassinate
one   Prof.   K.S.   Bhagawan   for   expressing   his   views   which   were
inimical to that of their ideology.  They intended to instil fear in the
hearts and minds of those whose views were antithesis to their own
21   Not   named   in   FIR   No.221/2017   and   in   the   preliminary   chargesheet;   shown   as
accused   No.9   in   the   prior   approval   and   as   accused   No.3   in   the   additional
chargesheet.
22   Not   named   in   FIR   No.221/2017   and   in   the   preliminary   chargesheet;   shown   as
accused   No.2   in   the   prior   approval   and   as   accused   No.13   in   the   additional
chargesheet.
23   Not   named   in   FIR   No.221/2017   and   in   the   preliminary   chargesheet;   shown   as
accused   No.4   in   the   prior   approval   and   as   accused   No.5   in   the   additional
chargesheet.

14
views   and   stifle   the   fundamental   right   of   free   speech   and
expression.     The   Commissioner   of   Police   was   also   convinced   that
the arrested accused Nos.1 to 12 and the absconding accused No.5
were   active   members   of   an   organized   crime   syndicate   and   have
committed   the   present   offence   in   furtherance   of   their   organized
crime activity in order to promote insurgency.     The Commissioner
of   Police   adverted   to   the   findings   in   the   investigation   record
revealing   that   one   Rajesh   D.   Bangera 24
  gave   training   in   arms   to
various   members   of   the  syndicate   since   2012   at   various   places   in
and around Karnataka and Maharashtra.   After having taken note
of these facts, the Commissioner of Police recorded his satisfaction
in the following words:
“Investigation findings have clearly revealed that these
members   of   the   organized   crime   syndicate   were   in
constant   touch   with   one   another   and   actively
underwent   arms   training,   arms   shooting   practice,
crude   bomb   making   and   indoctrination.     They   met,
conspired and trained at various places in and around
Karnataka   and   Maharashtra   with   the   intention   of
promoting   insurgency.     Documents   seized   during   the
investigation clearly reveal the intention of the accused
to assassinate 8 writers/thinkers of Karnataka and 26
other writers/thinkers from the rest of the country.
24   Not   named   in   FIR   No.221/2017   and   in   the   preliminary   chargesheet;   shown   as
accused   No.11   in   the   prior   approval   and   as   accused   No.8   in   the   additional
chargesheet.

15
Documents   seized   in   the   course   of   investigation
conducted reveal the plans of how the organized crime
syndicate   intended   to   cause   grave   disturbance   to
public   order   during   the   release   of   a   movie   titled
‘Padmaavat’ by attacking films theatres where the said
movie would have been exhibited by the use of deadly
substances   like   petrol   bombs,   acid   etc.   and   cause
bodily   harm   to   the   viewers   and   economically   hurt   the
film  distributors.    These  documents  further  reveal the
intention   of   the   syndicate   to   procure   and   use   RDX,
petrol bombs, acids, poisons and other incendiary and
chemical materials.
Investigation   findings   have   prima   facie   revealed
that   these   members   of   the   organized   crime   syndicate
conspired and murdered Ms. Gauri Lankesh to further
their cause and to promote insurgency.
Thus,   on   perusal   and   evaluation   of   the   entire
material   brought   on   record   and   also   taking   into
consideration   the   factual   circumstances   of   the   case
including   the   proximity   and   time   gap   in   committing
the crimes and having applied my mind, I am satisfied
and   convinced   that   the   arrested   and   wanted   accused
have   committed   the   offence   as   defined   in   section   2(1)
of   the   Karnataka   Control   of   Organized   Crimes   Act,
2000.
NOW,   THEREFORE,   in   exercise   of   the   powers
conferred upon me by Section 24(1)(a) of the said Act,
I, T. Suneel Kumar, IPS, Additional Director General of
Police   and   Commissioner   of   Police,   Bengaluru   City
hereby   grant/accord   my   prior   approval   to   invoke
Section   3   of   The   Karnataka   Control   of   Organized
Crimes   Act   2000,   to   Sri   M.N.   Anucheth,   IPS,   DCP
(Administration),   Bengaluru   City   and   Chief
Investigating Officer (Special Investigation Team) in the
Bengaluru   City   Rajarajeshwari   Nagar   Police   Station
Crime No. 221/217 u/s 302, 120(B), 118, 114 r/w 35
of Indian Penal Code and 3, 25 of Indian Arms Act.
Sri   M.N.   Anucheth,   Chief   Investigating   Officer,
shall   scrupulously   follow   and   comply   with   the

16
provisions   of   The   Karnataka   Control   of   Organized
Crimes Act, 2000.
This   order   given   under   my   signature   and   seal
today i.e. 14 th
 August, 2018.”
15. It   is   plain   that   tangible   material   was   placed   before   the
Commissioner   regarding   information   about   the   commission   of   an
organized   crime   by   the   members   of   organized   crime   syndicate,
which warranted grant of prior approval to invoke Section 3 of the
2000 Act.   This prior  approval was assailed before the High Court
by   way   of   writ   petition   filed   much   after   the   appropriate   authority
had already accorded sanction and the competent court had taken
cognizance of that crime on 17.12.2018. 
16. The   High   Court   opened   the   judgment   by   noting   that   the
challenge is to the order dated 14.08.2018 of the Commissioner of
Police, Bengaluru City granting approval to invoke Section 3 of the
2000   Act.     In   the   latter   part   of   the   judgment,   however,   it   posed   a
wrong   question   to   itself   which   was   obviously   not   relevant   at   this
stage — as to whether Section 3 of the 2000 Act applies to the writ
petitioner­Mohan Nayak.N?  Notably, the High Court was not called
upon   nor   has   it   analysed   the   entire   material   collected   by   the

17
Investigating Agency, which had been made part of the chargesheet
filed   before   the   competent   Court   and   in   respect   of   which
cognizance is also taken.
17. For the time being for deciding the matter in issue, there is no
need to advert to the contents of the chargesheets and the material
collated   during   the   investigation   by   the   SIT   against   each   of   the
accused in respect of which cognizance has already been taken by
the competent Court.  
18. The   moot   question   to   be   answered   in   these   appeals   is   about
the purport of Section 24 of the 2000 Act.   Section 24(1)(a), which
is crucial for our purpose, reads thus:
“ 24.   Cognizance   of   and   investigation   into   an
offence .­(1)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in
the Code, ­
(a)   No   information   about   the   commission   of   an
offence   of   organized   crime   under   this   Act   shall   be
recorded by  a  police officer   without  the prior   approval
of   the   police   officer   not   below   the   rank   of   the   Deputy
Inspector General of Police;
…...”
19. The purport of this section, upon its textual construct, posits
that   information   regarding   commission   of   an   offence   of   organized
crime under   the 2000 Act  can be recorded by  a  police officer   only

18
upon   obtaining   prior   approval   of   the   police   officer   not   below   the
rank   of   the   Deputy   Inspector   General   of   Police.     That   is   the
quintessence for  recording  of offence of organized crime under  the
Act by a police officer.
20.  What is crucial in this provision is the factum of recording of
offence  of  organized  crime  and  not   of  recording   of  a  crime  against
an offender as such.  Further, the right question to be posed at this
stage   is:   whether   prior   approval   accorded   by   the   competent
authority   under   Section   24(1)(a)   is   valid?     In   that,   whether   there
was   discernible   information   about   commission   of   an   offence   of
organized   crime   by   known   and   unknown   persons   as   being
members   of   the   organized   crime   syndicate?     Resultantly,   what
needed   to   be   enquired   into   by   the   appropriate   authority   (in   the
present   case,   Commissioner   of   Police)   is:   whether   the   factum   of
commission   of   offence   of   organized   crime   by   an   organized   crime
syndicate can be culled out from the material placed before him for
grant of prior approval?   That alone is the question to be enquired
into even by the Court at this stage.   It is cardinal to observe that
only   after   registration   of   FIR,   investigation   for   the   concerned

19
offence   would   proceed   —   in   which   the   details   about   the   specific
role and the identity of the persons involved in such offence can be
unravelled and referred to in the chargesheet to be filed before the
competent Court.
21. Concededly,   the   original   FIR   registered   in   the   present   case
was for an ordinary crime of murder against unknown persons.  At
the   relevant   time,   the   material   regarding   offence   having   been
committed by an organized crime syndicate was not known.   That
information came to the fore only after investigation of the offence
by   the  SIT,  as  has  been  mentioned  in   the  report  submitted to  the
Commissioner   of   Police,   Bengaluru   City   for   seeking   his   prior
approval to invoke Section 3 of the 2000 Act.   Once again, at this
stage, the Commissioner of Police had focussed only on the factum
of  information regarding  the commission  of organized crime by  an
organized crime syndicate and on being   prima facie   satisfied about
the presence of material on record in that regard, rightly proceeded
to   accord   prior   approval   for   invoking   Section   3   of   the   2000   Act.
The prior approval was not for registering crime against individual
offenders   as   such,   but   for   recording   of   information   regarding

20
commission   of   an   offence   of   organized   crime   under   the   2000   Act.
Therefore, the specific role of the concerned accused is not required
to   be   and   is   not   so   mentioned   in   the   stated   prior   approval.     That
aspect   would   be   unravelled   during   the   investigation,   after
registration   of   offence   of   organized   crime.     The   High   Court,   thus,
examined   the   matter   by   applying   erroneous   scale.     The
observations   made   by   the   High   Court   in   the   impugned   judgment
clearly reveal that it has glossed over the core and tangible facts. 
22. Notably,   the   High   Court,   without   analysing   the   material
presented along with chargesheet on the basis of which cognizance
has been taken by the competent Court including against the writ
petitioner­Mohan   Nayak.N,   concerning   commission   of   organized
crime   by   the   organized   crime   syndicate   of   which   he   is   allegedly   a
member, committed manifest error and exceeded its jurisdiction in
quashing the chargesheet filed before the competent Court  qua  the
writ   petitioner­Mohan   Nayak.N   regarding   offences   under   Section
3(1)(i),  3(2),  3(3) and  3(4)  of  the   2000  Act.   The  High  Court  did so
being impressed by the exposition of this Court in  Lalit Somdatta

21
Nagpal 25
,   in   particular   paragraph   63   thereof.     Indeed,   that
exposition would have bearing only if the entire material was to be
analysed   by   the   High   Court   to   conclude   that   the   facts   do   not
disclose   justification   for   application   of   provisions   of   the   2000   Act
including   qua   the writ petitioner­Mohan Nayak.N, provided he was
being   proceeded   only   for   offence   of   organized   crime   punishable
under   Section   3(1)   of   the   2000   Act.     For,   the   reported   decision
deals   with   the   argument   regarding   invocation   of   provision
analogous   to   Section   3(1)   of   the   2000   Act.     Be   it   noted   that
requirement   of   more   than   two   chargesheets   is   in   reference   to   the
continuing unlawful activities of the organized crime syndicate and
not   qua   individual   member   thereof.     Reliance   was   also   placed   on
Brijesh   Singh 26
.     Even   this   decision   is   of   no   avail   to   the   private
respondent­Mohan   Nayak.N   for   the   same   reason   noted   whilst
distinguishing   Lalit   Somdatta   Nagpal 27
.     Further,   the   questions
considered in that case, as can be discerned from paragraph 12 of
the   reported   decision,   are   regarding   jurisdiction   of   the   competent
Court   to   take   notice   of   chargesheets   filed   against   the   accused
25  supra at Footnote No.5
26  supra at Footnote No.6 (paragraph 25)
27  supra at Footnote No.5

22
outside   the   State.     It   is   not   an   authority   on   the   issue   under
consideration. 
23. We   may   hasten   to   add   that   the   fact   that   the   Investigating
Agency was unable to collect material during  investigation against
the writ petitioner­Mohan Nayak.N for offence under Section 3(1) of
the   2000   Act,   does   not   mean   that   the   information   regarding
commission of a crime by  him  within the meaning  of Section 3(2),
3(3)   or   3(4)   of   the   2000   Act   cannot   be   recorded   and   investigated
against   him   as   being   a   member   of   the   organized   crime   syndicate
and/or   having   played   role   of   an   abettor,   being   party   to   the
conspiracy   to   commit   organized   crime   or   of   being   a   facilitator,   as
the   case   may   be.     For   the   latter   category   of   offence,   it   is   not
essential that more than two chargesheets have been filed against
the   person   so   named,   before   a   competent   court   within   the
preceding period of ten years and that court had taken cognizance
of such offence.  That requirement applies essentially to an offence
punishable only under Section 3(1) of the 2000 Act.

23
24. As   regards   offences   punishable   under   Section   3(2),   3(3),   3(4)
or   3(5),   it   can   proceed   against   any   person   sans   such   previous
offence  registered  against  him,  if  there  is  material  to   indicate  that
he happens to be a member  of the organized crime syndicate who
had   committed   the   offences   in   question   and   it   can   be   established
that   there   is   material   about   his   nexus   with   the   accused   who   is   a
member   of   the   organized   crime   syndicate.     This   position   is
expounded   in   the   case   of   Ranjitsingh   Brahmajeetsing   Sharma
vs. State of Maharashtra 28
  which has been quoted with approval
in   paragraph   85   of   the   judgment   in   Prasad   Shrikant   Purohit 29
.
The same   reads thus:
“ 85.   A reading of para 31 in   Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing
Sharma   case 30
    shows   that   in   order   to
invoke   M COCA   even   if   a   person   may   or   may   not   have
any direct role to play as regards the commission of an
organised crime, if a nexus either with an accused who
is a member of an “organised crime syndicate” or with
the   offence   in   the   nature   of   an   “organised   crime”   is
established   that   would   attract   the   invocation   of
Section   3(2)   of   M COCA .   Therefore,   even   if   one   may
not   have   any   direct   role   to   play   relating   to   the
commission of an “organised crime”, but when the
nexus   of   such   person   with   an   accused   who   is   a
member of the “organised crime syndicate” or such
nexus   is   related   to   the   offence   in   the   nature   of
28  (2005) 5 SCC 294
29  supra at Footnote No.10
30  s upra at Footnote No.28

24
“organised   crime”   is   established   by   showing   his
involvement with the accused or the offence in the
nature   of   such   “organised   crime”,   that   by   itself
would   attract   the   provisions   of   M COCA .   The   said
statement   of   law   by   this   Court,   therefore,   makes   the
position  clear   as  to  in  what   circumstances   M COCA   can
be   applied   in   respect   of   a   person   depending   upon   his
involvement   in   an   organised   crime   in   the   manner   set
out in the said paragraph. In paras 36 and 37,   it was
made   further   clear   that   such   an   analysis   to   be
made   to   ascertain   the   invocation   of   M COCA   against
a   person   need   not   necessarily   go   to   the   extent   for
holding   a   person   guilty   of   such   offence   and   that
even a finding to that extent need not be recorded .
But   such   findings   have   to   be   necessarily   recorded   for
the   purpose   of   arriving   at   an   objective   finding   on   the
basis   of   materials   on   record   only   for   the   limited
purpose of grant of bail and not for any other purpose.
Such   a   requirement   is,   therefore,   imminent   under
Section 21(4)( b ) of   M COCA .”
(emphasis supplied)
25. It   is   not   necessary   to   multiply   authorities   in   this   regard.
Suffice   it   to   observe   that   the   High   Court   in   the   present   case   was
essentially concerned with the legality of prior approval granted by
the   Commissioner   of   Police,   Bengaluru   City   dated   14.08.2018   for
invoking Section 3 of the 2000 Act and thus, to allow recording of
information   regarding   commission   of   offence   of   organized   crime
under   the   2000   Act   and   to   investigate   the   same.     As   aforesaid,
while   considering   the   proposal   for   grant   of   prior   approval   under

25
Section 24(1)(a) of the 2000 Act, what is essential is the satisfaction
of   the   competent   authority   that   the   material   placed   before   him
does reveal presence of credible information regarding commission
of   an   offence   of   organized   crime   by   the   organized   crime   syndicate
and, therefore, allow invocation of Section 3 of the 2000 Act.   As a
consequence   of   which,   investigation   of   that   crime   can   be   taken
forward   by   the   Investigating   Agency   and   chargesheet   can   be   filed
before   the   concerned   Court   and   upon   grant   of   sanction   by   the
competent authority under Section 24(2), the competent Court can
take cognizance of the case.
26. At the stage of granting prior approval under Section 24(1)(a)
of the 2000 Act, therefore, the competent authority is not required
to   wade   through   the   material   placed   by   the   Investigating   Agency
before   him   along   with   the   proposal   for   grant   of   prior   approval   to
ascertain   the   specific   role   of   each   accused.     The   competent
authority   has   to   focus   essentially   on   the   factum   whether   the
information/material   reveals   the   commission   of   a   crime   which   is
an   organized   crime   committed   by   the   organized   crime   syndicate.
In   that,   the   prior   approval   is   qua   offence   and   not   the   offender   as

26
such.     As   long   as   the   incidents   referred   to   in   earlier   crimes   are
committed by a group of persons and one common individual was
involved in all the incidents, the offence under the 2000 Act can be
invoked.  This Court in  Prasad Shrikant Purohit 31
  in paragraphs
61   and   98   expounded   that   at   the   stage   of   taking   cognizance,   the
competent   Court   takes   cognizance   of   the   offence   and   not   the
offender.     This   analogy   applies   even   at   the   stage   of   grant   of   prior
approval   for   invocation   of   provisions   of   the   2000   Act.     The   prior
sanction   under   Section   24(2),   however,   may   require   enquiry   into
the   specific   role   of   the   offender   in   the   commission   of   organized
crime,   namely,   he   himself   singly   or   jointly   or   as   a   member   of   the
organized   crime   syndicate   indulged   in   commission   of   the   stated
offences   so   as   to   attract   the   punishment   provided   under   Section
3(1) of the 2000 Act.   However, if the role of the offender is merely
that   of   a   facilitator   or   of   an   abettor   as   referred   to   in   Section   3(2),
3(3), 3(4) or  3(5), the  requirement  of named person  being   involved
in more than two chargesheets registered against him in the past is
not   relevant.     Regardless   of   that,   he   can   be   proceeded   under   the
2000   Act,   if   the   material   collected   by   the   Investigating   Agency
31  supra at Footnote No.10

27
reveals that he had nexus with the accused who is a member of the
organized crime syndicate or such nexus is related to the offence in
the nature of organized crime.  Thus, he need not be a person who
had direct role in the commission of an organized crime as such.
27. A   priori ,   the   conclusion   reached   by   the   High   Court   in   partly
allowing   the   writ   petition   filed   by   the   writ   petitioner­Mohan
Nayak.N, is manifestly wrong and cannot be countenanced.  In any
case,   the   High   Court   has   completely   glossed   over   the   crucial   fact
that the writ petition was filed only after the sanction was accorded
by   the   competent   authority   under   Section   24(2)   and   more   so
cognizance was also taken by the competent Court of the offence of
organized   crime   committed   by   the   members   of   organized   crime
syndicate   including   the   writ   petitioner   —   to   which   there   was   no
challenge.     The   High   Court   has   not   analysed   the   efficacy   of   these
developments   as   disentitling   the   writ   petitioner   belated   relief
claimed   in   respect   of   prior   approval   under   Section   24(1)(a)   of   the
2000   Act.     Further,   the   High   Court   has   clearly   exceeded   its
jurisdiction   in   quashing   the   chargesheet   filed   against   the   writ
petitioner­Mohan   Nayak.N   for   offences   punishable   under   Section

28
3(2),   3(3)   and   3(4)   of   the   2000   Act   at   this   stage   [of   prior   approval
under Section 24(1)(a)].
28. Taking   any   view   of   the   matter,   therefore,   these   appeals
deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the
High Court needs to be set aside.
29. While   parting,   we   may   clarify   that   rejection   of   writ   petition
filed by the private respondent­Mohan Nayak.N will not come in his
way   in   pursuing   other   remedies   as   may   be   available   to   him   and
permissible  in  law.   We  may   not  be understood  to  have expressed
any   opinion   either   way   on   the   merits   of   such   remedy.     In   other
words,   this   judgment   is   limited   to   the   consideration   of   question
whether   prior   approval   dated   14.08.2018   granted   by   the
Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, in connection with offence
registered   as   Crime   No.221/2017,   is   valid   or   otherwise.     We   have
held that the same does not suffer from any infirmity including  qua
private   respondent­Mohan   Nayak.N   having   noted   his   intimate
nexus with the brain behind the entire event being none other than
Amol   Kale   and   master   arms   trainer   Rajesh   D.   Bangera   who   are

29
part   and   parcel   of   an   organized   crime   syndicate   and   committed
organized crimes as such.  
30. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed.   The impugned
judgment and order dated 22.04.2021 passed by the High Court is
set   aside   and   the   writ   petition   filed   by   Mohan   Nayak.N   stands
dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
………………………………J.
      (A.M. Khanwilkar)
………………………………J.
(Dinesh Maheshwari)
………………………………J.
      (C.T. Ravikumar)
New Delhi;
October 21, 2021.