The Wheel of Crime: Understanding "Hub-and-Spoke" Conspiracies and Why They Matter Under MCOCA

 

 Why Should a Judge Care About a Wheel?

Picture a bicycle wheel. In the centre sits a hub. Radiating outward are the spokes. Holding it all together at the edge is the rim. Now replace that wheel with a criminal enterprise — and you have one of the most useful mental models available to any judge trying to make sense of a sprawling, multi-accused organised crime prosecution: the hub-and-spoke conspiracy.

This is not just an academic curiosity from American law. It is a structural lens that helps separate a genuine organised crime syndicate from a loose collection of unrelated individuals who happen to share a common contact. For judges dealing with MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999) cases — where chargesheets often name a dozen or more accused with wildly varying degrees of connection to each other — this distinction can decide whether a prosecution stands or collapses.

Print Page

Organised Crime under BNS and MCOCA: Common Core, Different Reach

 The easiest way to remember organised crime under BNS and MCOCA is this: both laws do not punish a single stray offence; they target a continuing criminal enterprise connected with a syndicate. In both, the prosecution must show repeated serious unlawful activity, nexus with an organised crime syndicate, prior charge-sheets within ten years, and use of unlawful means for unlawful gain or advantage.

 BNS has largely borrowed the structural idea from MCOCA, but BNS makes it part of the general penal law and gives a broader illustrative list of organised crimes. MCOCA remains a special, stricter State law model, while BNS is wider in catalogue and also separately recognizes petty organised crime under Section 112.

Print Page

Organised Crime after the BNS: Expansion, Ambiguity and the Lessons of MCOCA

 The concept of organised crime in Indian criminal law now stands at an important transition point: MCOCA supplied a narrowly structured special-law model, while Section 111 of the BNS imports that model into the general penal code and simultaneously expands its textual reach. This shift is significant, because a framework designed for exceptional, syndicate-based criminality now risks becoming a broadly deployable prosecutorial tool unless courts insist on strict statutory discipline and precise evidentiary thresholds.

I. The shared architecture: continuity, syndicate, coercive means, unlawful gain

Print Page

MCOCA Charges Added After Bail? A Practical Roadmap for Sessions Judges

 When MCOCA is invoked mid‑stream in a case where the accused is already on bail, three issues arise together: jurisdiction, the fate of existing bail, and the correct form of the Sessions Court’s order. This article consolidates the law from Supreme Court and High Court decisions into a single, practitioner‑oriented guide.

Jurisdiction: Sessions Court Is Immediately Divested

Section 6 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 provides that “every offence punishable under this Act shall be triable only by the Special Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed…” This “only by the Special Court” language, read with Section 5, creates exclusive jurisdiction in the notified MCOCA Special Court; no other criminal court can assume such jurisdiction.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Grant Of Bail Must Be Subject To Embargo In Special Enactments : Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Of MCOCA Accused

As per Section 21(4) of the MCOCA, bail cannot be granted unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

“..it is a fact that the impugned order did not reflect such consideration as has been required in respect of matter involving offences under MCOCA in terms of the provisions thereunder as also the decisions rendered by this Court in respect of grant of bail. When there is an embargo put in by a specific provision under a special enactment in the matter of grant of bail in respect of offences allegedly committed thereunder, the power to grant bail should necessarily be subject to satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in such specific provision. In the case on hand, such a specific provision is contained under Section 21(4) of the MCOCA.”, the court observed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2025

Decided On: 02.01.2025

Jayshree Kanabar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 13,MANU/SC/0018/2025

Print Page

The Power of ‘No’: How Section 23 MCOCA Blocks FIRs Without Sanction

 Can a private citizen set the criminal law in motion? usually, the answer is a resounding "Yes." The principle of locus standi is foreign to criminal jurisprudence—anyone can knock on the doors of the police to report a crime.

But what happens when a special statute steps in?

In the recent ruling of Dhanraj N Asawani vs. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi  2023 INSC 710 , the Supreme Court of India delivered a masterclass on statutory interpretation. While the case dealt with the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, it provided a brilliant comparative analysis of Section 23 of the MCOCA, clarifying exactly what it takes for a special law to override the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Here is why the difference between a "Positive Duty" and a "Negative Bar" changes everything for criminal practitioners.

Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Expanding the Scope of MCOCA: Maharashtra’s 2025 Amendment to Curb Drug-Related Organised Crime

 Introduction

Maharashtra’s fight against organised crime has taken a significant turn with the recent passage of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime (Amendment) Act, 2025. This legislative move targets the alarming rise of narcotic drug crimes by redefining “organised crime” under the original Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).

Overview of the MCOCA (1999)

Print Page

Bombay HC: When presence of accused in unlawful assembly is established, his name is not mentioned in FIR Looses importance

 Although, name of the Appellant does not appear to be mentioned specifically in the FIR, yet it is stated that the accused persons named in the FIR along with their associates had assaulted the victim causing severe injuries. It is significant that the auto rickshaw in which the assailants reached the spot of the incident and in which weapons were kept, was recovered from the custody of the Appellant. {Para 7}

8. The statement of witnesses indicate that the Appellant was present along with other accused persons at the spot of incident and since the present case is concerned with criminal activities undertaken by the unlawful assembly of which the Appellant, prima facie, was a member, it cannot be said that there is no link established between the Appellant and the aforesaid incident. Once the presence of the Appellant even, prima facie, stands established, he cannot claim benefit of the fact that he was not specifically named in the FIR. It is a settled position of law that the FIR is not an encyclopedia about the facts pertaining to the incident in question and that it is a report which triggers investigation into a crime.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2020

Decided On: 19.03.2021

Arif Riyaz Ghodeshwar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde and Manish Pitale, JJ.

Author: Manish Pitale, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3373/2021

Print Page

Important provisions of Criminal minor Acts(Part 2)

 

1) Important provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/06/important-provisions-of-maharashtra.html

2) Important provisions of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/07/important-provisions-of-maharashtra.html

3) Important provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013

https://www.lawweb.in/2025/01/important-provisions-of-sexual.html

Print Page

Important judgments and articles on BNS 2023

 

1) What are differences in approaches under MCOCA and Organized Crime under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/09/what-are-differences-in-approaches.html

2) How concept of Sedition as mentioned in Clause 152 of BNS is different from Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code?

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/09/how-concept-of-sedition-as-mentioned-in.html

3) The Evolution of Sedition Law in India: From Colonial Relic to Modern Controversy U/S 152 of the BNS

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/09/the-evolution-of-sedition-law-in-india.html

4) Kerala High Court Elucidates 'Organized Crime' punishable U/S 111(1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 : A Comprehensive Analysis

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/09/kerala-high-court-elucidates-organized.html

5) Kerala HC: To Attract Offense of organized crime punishable U/S 111(1) BNS Two Or More Persons Must Carry Out Continuous Unlawful Activity Leading To More Than One Chargesheet Within Last 10 Yrs

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/09/kerala-hc-to-attract-offense-of.html

6) Offences for which death penalty may be awarded under the BNS, 2023

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/11/offences-for-which-death-penalty-may-be.html

Print Page

Bombay HC: Right to seek default bail in MCOCA case will arise next day after sanction to prosecute is refused by competent authority

 The issue can be examined from a different angle. If we assume for the sake of argument that the effect of the order refusing sanction to prosecute the accused as amounting to not disclosing of any offence under the MCOC Act, the further consequence thereof would, at the most, be that the custody extension order will cease to have any effect at the end of the day on which sanction is refused and till that day, the extension order would have to be held as valid. Even from this view point, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on default bail as the essential condition required for accrual of indefeasible right under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. to the petitioners is not fulfilled. This can be seen from the facts available on record, which show that charge-sheet has been filed on 22/08/2022 and on the same day, the application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioners. Of course, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the application of the petitioners was filed about 30 minutes before the charge-sheet was filed and, therefore, their application was first in point of time and as such there was an accrual of right of default bail to the petitioners. The argument, in our view, is really not relevant for deciding the controversy involved in the petition. The reason being that, the day on which sanction was refused by the authority, would have to be considered to be the day on which the extended period of custody expired and, therefore, the right to seek default bail would arise on the immediate next day. It also means that when sanction is refused, as for example on Monday, this day of Monday would be the last day on which extended period of custody would come to an end, though in normal circumstances it would have expired later, and therefore, the Investigating Officer would have to take care that he files the final report on that day or otherwise he risks the grant of default bail to the accused. This is because of the fact that the provisions made under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. speak not in terms of hours, minutes and seconds, but only in terms of number of days completed. For the purpose of ascertaining as to when the period of authorized custody comes to an end, it is only the number of completed days, which is relevant and not the time at which the event having the effect of rendering the custody as unauthorized took place. {Para 21}

22. If we examine the issue from the above alternative, which we have proposed only by way of assumption and for the sake of argument, still the petitioners cannot be said to be fulfilling the essential requirement of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. in order to avail of right of default bail. The application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. was filed by them on 22/08/2022 and that was the day when the sanction to prosecute the petitioners was refused. It was thus the day which became the last day of their authorized custody, which was otherwise extended up to 23/08/2022. Therefore, the right to avail of default bail in terms of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. really arose in their favour only from 23/08/2022.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 817 of 2022

Decided On: 23.12.2022

Naresh and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Shukre and M.W. Chandwani, JJ.

Author: M.W. Chandwani, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/4539/2022.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Refusal Of Sanction To Prosecute under MCOCA Does Not Invalidate Extension Of Judicial Custody Given By Special Court

A question remains, whether or not refusal of sanction by the A.D.G.P. under the provisions of the MCOC Act by itself will invalidate the grant of extension of period up to 180 days and would automatically reduce the judicial custody remand to it's original period of 90 days, especially when the extension had been granted under a judicial order, not challenged by the petitioners. It is to be noted the investigation for an offence and cognizance of the offence under the provisions of MOCC Act are governed by Section 23 of the MCOC Act, which are reproduced here. {Para 6}

"23. Cognizance of, and investigation into, an offence-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code,-Section 167

(a) no information about the commission of an offence of organised 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;

(b) no investigation of an offence under the provisions of this Act shall be carried out by a police officer below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

(2) No. Special Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the police officer not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police."

17. It is worthy to note here that the power to extend the period to complete the investigation up to 180 days is exercised under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. by invocation of provisions made under Section 21 of the MCOC Act and whereas power to grant or refuse sanction to prosecute has it's source in Section 23 of the MCOC Act. Former power is exercised by the Court and latter power by a Police Officer. Objects of both kinds of powers are different. Custody extension is done for, inter alia, ensuring effective and speedy investigation, without any hindrance, while sanction is necessary to enable the Special Court to take cognizance of an offence under the MCOC Act, which is disclosed by the charge-sheet. In other words, former power exists for facilitating the investigation, while the latter power is to facilitate trial of the accused. Thus, both these powers operate in different fields. After considering the magnitude of the investigation required in a particular case, the Special Judge enables in depth investigation by extending custody period, and whereas, there is an embargo created by Section 23(2) of the MCOC Act on the cognizance taking by the Special Court without previous sanction of the A.D.G.P. The purpose of incorporating such embargo is to provide double filter before roping in anybody under the stringent provisions of law.

18. Thus, extending further time of 90 days for completing the investigation by the Special Judge is one thing and giving sanction by the A.D.G.P. is a different thing. Once, the Special Court after giving reasons has extended the period of investigation up to 180 days, the refusal of sanction will not take away the extended period of 90 days granted by the Special Court or even curtail the extended period granted by the Special Court. The detention here was authorized by a legal order of the Court under Section 21(2)(b) of the MCOC Act, after considering the material then available with police and with reasoned order and it was never challenged and, therefore, it became a final order. The detention of the petitioners after 90 days thus can not be said to be unauthorized detention.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 817 of 2022

Decided On: 23.12.2022

Naresh and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Shukre and M.W. Chandwani, JJ.

Author: M.W. Chandwani, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/4539/2022

Print Page

Supreme Court: What is duty of the while deciding bail application under Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999?

The question as to whether he is involved in the commission of organized crime or abetment thereof must be judged objectively. Only because some allegations have been made against a high ranking officer, which cannot be brushed aside, may not by itself be sufficient to continue to keep him behind the bars although on an objective consideration the court may come to the conclusion that the evidences against him are not such as would lead to his conviction. In case of circumstantial evidence like the present one, not only culpability or mens rea of the accused should be prima facie established, the Court must also consider the question as to whether the circumstantial evidence is such whereby all the links in the chain are complete.

55. The wording of Section 21(4), in our opinion, does not lead to the conclusion that the Court must arrive at a positive finding that the applicant for bail has not committed an offence under the Act. If such a construction is placed, the court intending to grant bail must arrive at a finding that the applicant has not committed such an offence. In such an event, it will be impossible for the prosecution to obtain a judgment of conviction of the applicant. Such cannot be the intention of the Legislature. Section 21(4) of MCOCA, therefore, must be construed reasonably. It must be so construed that the Court is able to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. Similarly, the Court will be required to record a finding as to the possibility of his committing a crime after grant of bail. However, such an offence in future must be an offence under the Act and not any other offence. Since it is difficult to predict the future conduct of an accused, the court must necessarily consider this aspect of the matter having regard to the antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence.

56. It is, furthermore, trite that for the purpose of considering an application for grant of bail, although detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned, the order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind at least in serious cases as to why the applicant has been granted or denied the privilege of bail.

57. The duty of the court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. However, while dealing with a special statute like MCOCA having regard to the provisions contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, the Court may have to probe into the matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding that the materials collected against the accused during the investigation may not justify a judgment of conviction. The findings recorded by the Court while granting or refusing bail undoubtedly would be tentative in nature, which may not have any bearing on the merit of the case and the trial court would, thus, be free to decide the case on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial, without in any manner being prejudiced thereby.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 2005.

Decided On: 07.04.2005

Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N. Santosh Hegde, B.P. Singh and S.B. Sinha, JJ.

Author: S.B. Sinha, J.

Citation: (2005) 5 SCC 294,MANU/SC/0268/2005.

Print Page

Kerala HC: To Attract Offense of organized crime punishable U/S 111(1) BNS Two Or More Persons Must Carry Out Continuous Unlawful Activity Leading To More Than One Chargesheet Within Last 10 Yrs

 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. {Para 16}

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-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence.

18. In the present case, it is undisputed that no charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner in any court in the last ten years. Therefore, prima facie, the offence under Section 111(1) is not attracted.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl. No. 5927 of 2024

Decided On: 13.08.2024

Muhammad Rasheed Vs. State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.S. Dias, J.

Citation: MANU/KE/2836/2024.

Print Page

Kerala High Court Elucidates 'Organized Crime' punishable U/S 111(1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 : A Comprehensive Analysis

 In a landmark judgment (Bail Application No. 5927 of 2024),Muhammad Rasheed Vs. State of Kerala Decided On: 13.08.2024, the High Court of Kerala has provided crucial clarification on the interpretation of 'organized crime' under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. This case, involving a bail application for an accused charged with gold smuggling, offers significant insights into how courts may apply the new organized crime provisions.

Key Insights and Analysis:

1. Definition of Organized Crime: The court meticulously analyzed Section 111(1) of the BNS, which defines organized crime. It emphasized that for an offense to be classified as organized crime, there must be a "continuing unlawful activity" by a group acting as an organized crime syndicate. This definition aims to target systematic and ongoing criminal enterprises rather than isolated incidents.
2. Requirement of Prior Charge Sheets: A pivotal aspect highlighted by the court is the necessity of having more than one charge sheet filed against the accused within the preceding ten years, with the court having taken cognizance of such offenses. This requirement ensures that the law targets individuals with a pattern of criminal behavior.

Print Page

Whether Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime act (Mcoca) will prevail over provisions of organized crime as mentioned in Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as per S 5 of BNSS?

 To determine whether the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) will prevail over the provisions of organized crime as mentioned in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), we need to consider the legal framework established by BNSS, particularly Section 5, which addresses the relationship between special laws and general laws.

Understanding Section 5 of the BNSS

Section 5 of the BNSS  states that:

"Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect any special law for the time being in force."

This means that if there is a specific law dealing with a particular issue, that law will take precedence over the general provisions of the BNSS. In essence, special laws like MCOCA can coexist with general laws, and in cases of conflict, the special law will prevail.

Implications of MCOCA and BNS

Print Page

What are differences in approaches under MCOCA and Organized Crime under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?

 The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) both aim to address organized crime in India, but they differ significantly in their approaches, definitions, and procedural frameworks. Here’s a detailed comparison of their key aspects:

 Definitions and Scope

MCOCA

- Definition of Organized Crime: MCOCA defines organized crime as any continuing unlawful activity conducted by individuals as part of an organized crime syndicate, which involves violence, intimidation, or coercion for financial gain or other advantages. It emphasizes the need for a syndicate of two or more persons engaged in such activities.

  

- Specificity: While MCOCA outlines a broad definition of organized crime, it has been criticized for its vague terms, allowing for its application in various cases, including those already covered under other laws.

BNS

Print Page

Important provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999

 1. Short title, extent and commencement.—(1) This Act may be called the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

 Received the assent of the Governor on 23rd April, 1999 and published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette Extraordinary, Part-IV, dated 24th April, 1999.

(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Maharashtra.

2. Definitions.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

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

Print Page

Whether the court quash prosecution against accused for an offence under MCOC Act if he was not present on the spot?

The law on the point of invocation of MCOC is well settled This Act is enacted to prevent and control an organized crime. Organized crime is different from regular crime. If for gaining pecuniary benefits, economic/other advantage unlawful activity is continued it is an organized crime. It must be undertaken on behalf of the organized crime syndicate. It means if there is crime syndicate and they are involved in criminal activity and it has became their source of livelihood, it attracts the provisions of stringent MCOC Act. Normal criminal law is not sufficient to control the activities. {Para 17}

18. It is not necessary that every time same set of criminals will commit that offence. There may be new accused or combination of old and new participants. What is important is all these offences are connected through the web of organized crime syndicate. On this background, if we see the previous offences, we may be find that the gang leader accused Shankar Dashrath Salve is arrested. There is combination of different accused. Accused Shankar Dashrath Salve is involved in present offence. Present Petitioner assisted the arrested accused in committing the offence. Helping them to run, to take shelter attracts invocation of Indian Penal Code. In that manner Petitioner has become member of that crime syndicate.

19. After considering the ratios laid down in above referred judgments, we do not feel that the action of the police in showing the Petitioner as wanted accused does amount to abuse of the process of the Court. It is for the reason that the investigation so far carried out suggest the involvement of the Petitioner. It is not always necessary that every accused must be present on the spot. There are various circumstances in the chain f (sic)circumstances. In that chain, it may happen that set of accused persons may be present at the spot, some of the accused have played a role prior to commission of offence and some of them have participated post commission of offence. Materials shown to us do suggest involvement of the Petitioner in helping the assailants in different manners.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Writ Petition No. 3812 of 2021

Decided On: 28.03.2022

Rajendra Bhau Patole  Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.B. Varale and S.M. Modak, JJ.

Author: S.M. Modak, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1201/2022

Print Page

Whether delay in conduct of test identification parade is fatal to prosecution case?

  It may be mentioned that in the case of Pramod Mandal v/s.

State of Bihar (2204) 13 SCC 150, the Apex Court has held that “ It is neither possible nor prudent to lay down any invariable rule as to the  period within which a test identification parade must be held, or the number of witnesses who must correctly identify the accused, to sustain his conviction. These matters must be left to the courts of fact to decide in the facts and circumstances of each case. If a rule is laid down prescribing a period within which the test identification parade must be held, it would only benefit the professional criminals in whose cases the arrests are delayed as the police have no clear clue about their identity, they being persons unknown to the victims. They, therefore, have only to avoid their arrest for the prescribed period to avoid conviction. Similarly, there may be offences which by their very

nature may be witnessed by a single witness, such as rape. The

offender may be unknown to the victim and the case depends solely on the identification by the victim, who is otherwise found to be truthful and reliable. What justification can be pleaded to contend that such cases must necessarily result in acquittal because of there being only one identifying witness ? Prudence therefore demands that these matters must be left to the wisdom of the courts of fact which must consider all aspects of the matter in the light of the evidence on record before pronouncing upon the acceptability or rejection of such identification. ”

14. These principles have been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Raja v/s. State by the Inspector of Police with Govindaraj and Ors. v/s. State by the Inspector of Police, AIR 2020 SC 254. The Apex court has held that there is no hard and fast rule about the period within which the Test Identification Parade must be held from the date of arrest of the accused. In the instant case, though there is delay of about one month in conducting the Test Identification Prade, the records reveal that the Investigating Officer (PW22) was not at all cross examined on this aspect and no motive was imputed to the prosecution

for the delay in holding the TI parade. Hence, the delay in holding the TI parade is not per se fatal to the case of the prosecution.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 938 OF 2015

Harqbahaddur Logbahaddur Bhandari @ Raju Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED : 06th SEPTEMBER, 2021.

Print Page