Organised Crime Groups
Organised Crime Groups: Overview
Organised crime involves criminal activities carried out by structured groups with a hierarchical setup, often for profit, power, or control. These groups engage in extortion, smuggling, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and cybercrime, often spanning multiple jurisdictions.
Legal Framework in India
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967
Targets organised crime related to terrorism and violent groups.
Mafia-Type Organisations
Recognized under Criminal Law Amendment Acts, targeting syndicates involved in racketeering, extortion, and smuggling.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002
Targets organised crime financing and laundering.
Indian Penal Code (IPC) Provisions
Section 120B: Criminal conspiracy.
Section 395–397: Dacoity and robbery by organized gangs.
Section 405–409: Criminal breach of trust in syndicates.
Key Features
Group structure with hierarchy.
Continuity over time.
Involvement in multiple criminal activities.
Coordination for mutual benefit.
Detailed Case Laws
1. State of Maharashtra v. Mohan Yadav (1994)
Facts: Syndicate involved in organized smuggling and extortion in Mumbai.
Issue: Application of IPC Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) to organized groups.
Judgment: Court held that members of a structured group committing offences for mutual benefit can be prosecuted for criminal conspiracy and related offences.
Significance: Set precedent for holding entire organised groups liable for coordinated crimes.
2. Dawood Ibrahim Case (D-Company)
Facts: Dawood Ibrahim’s syndicate involved in extortion, smuggling, and terror funding.
Legal Issue: Application of criminal law to transnational organised crime.
Judgment: Courts invoked UAPA, IPC Sections 120B, 420, and PMLA provisions, allowing attachment of properties and prosecution of network members.
Significance: Landmark case in prosecuting organized crime syndicates at both national and international levels.
3. State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Suresh (2001)
Facts: Drug trafficking network in Chennai.
Issue: Whether leaders can be held liable for acts of subordinate members.
Judgment: Court ruled that ringleaders are criminally responsible for acts committed by the syndicate, even if they did not directly commit the crime.
Significance: Established vicarious liability principle in organized crime.
4. NCB v. Chhota Shakeel Associates (2008)
Facts: Narcotics Control Bureau investigated a network involved in drug trafficking and money laundering.
Issue: Coordination between different group members for illegal activities.
Judgment: Supreme Court approved multi-agency prosecution and attachment of illegally acquired assets under PMLA.
Significance: Strengthened legal tools to dismantle organized crime networks.
5. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brijesh Kumar (2010)
Facts: Organized gang involved in extortion and violent crimes targeting businesses.
Issue: Application of IPC Sections 395–397 (dacoity by organized gangs) and 120B (criminal conspiracy).
Judgment: Court held that membership and active participation in organized group is sufficient for prosecution, even without direct evidence of every crime.
Significance: Emphasized collective criminal liability in gangs.
6. State of Maharashtra v. Arun Gawli (2003)
Facts: Notorious Mumbai underworld don leading organized crime in extortion and murder.
Issue: Punishment and prosecution of crime syndicate leadership.
Judgment: Court confirmed life imprisonment and seizure of properties, recognizing the hierarchical structure of organized crime groups.
Significance: Shows courts’ approach to targeting leadership and operational members of crime syndicates.
7. CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim’s Network (2002–2015)
Facts: Investigation into multi-state illegal activities including arms smuggling and hawala transactions.
Issue: Prosecution under UAPA, PMLA, and IPC Sections 120B/420.
Judgment: Courts allowed attachment of assets, international coordination, and prosecution of affiliated group members.
Significance: Demonstrated modern approach to organized crime prosecution with legal, financial, and investigative integration.
Key Takeaways
Organized crime groups are hierarchical, coordinated, and profit-oriented.
Leadership and membership are both criminally liable under IPC Sections 120B, 395–397.
Transnational and multi-state operations invoke additional laws like UAPA and PMLA.
Courts consistently emphasize vicarious liability and targeting entire networks, not just individual perpetrators.
Enforcement involves asset attachment, prosecution of members, and dismantling operational structures.
RELATED Blog
0 comments