Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1199 (AP)

Madasi Seetha Ramanjaneyulu v. State Of A. P.

2005-12-19

GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

body2005
( 1 ) THE petitioner is one of the accused in cr. No. 84 of 2003 for the alleged offence punishable Under Sections 258 and 259 read with 341. P. C. It is unnecessary to delve into various aspects mentioned in the report. For the said offences, the petitioner was arrested on 14-11-2003 and subsequently his application for bail was entertained by a competent Court and he was enlarged on bail. Subsequently, after the investigation, it is stated at the Bar that the police filed charge sheet on 17-11-2004 against the petitioner and others forthe alleged offences punishable under Section 120-B read with 258 and 259 i. P. C. and also under Sections 3 (1) (ii), 3 (2), 3 (4) and 3 (5) of A. P. Control of Organized crime Act,2001 (for short "coca" ). Pursuant to the COCA, the petitioner was again arrested on 17-1-2005 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (ii), 3 (2), 3 (4) and 3 (5) of the COCA. The petitioner approached this Court and moved an application for bail, however, this Court, by its order dated 24-3-2005, dismissed the application in the following manner. "after perusing the charge sheet, it becomes clear that the petitioner had facilitated gang members of accused no. 4 in the circulation of fake Advocate welfare Stamps. Therefore, on a subjective satisfaction, this Court holds that having regard to Section 21 (4) of a. P. COCA Act, petitioner is not entitled to any bail". Now, the petitioner has approached this Court for the very same relief which was negatived by this Court as stated above. ( 2 ) HEARD Mr. T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and mr. C. Sadasiva Reddy, learned standing counsel for C. B. I. ( 3 ) IN the normal circumstances, this Court would not have entertained this application as his earlier application was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court, but as certain crucial facts, during the course of arguments, have emanated with regard to the maintainability or jurisdiction of the COCA, this Court is taking up this application for hearing. ( 4 ) IN view of certain lapses in the functioning of the legal system, organized crime is posing an alarming and serious threat to the society by neutralizing the normal legal process through subversion of the enforcement machinery and causing violence against those who are inclined to depose against such crime syndicates. These criminal syndicates are making common cause with terrorist gangs and promote narco terrorism, which is being extended to the national boundaries of the country. The tentacles of organized criminal syndicates are fast penetrating into various sections of the economy and society, thereby causing violence and insecurity to the citizens. To control these criminal syndicates or gangs, the existing legal system is unable to tackle normal crime as it is inadequate to curb and control the powerful challenges put forth by the organized syndicates. Hence, the government of A. P. thought it fit to make a legislation to control the organized crime/ criminal syndicates and thus, the Act 42 of 2001 came into existence and the same was published in A. P. Gazette Part IV-B, (Ext.) no. 49, dated 29-10-2001. According to clause (3) of Section-1, the COCA shall come into force for a period of three years from the date of commencement of the COCA. As already stated, it was published in the gazette dated 29-10-2001 and the date of its effectiveness is mentioned in the Gazette as 5-11 -2001. However, Clause (4) of Section 1 says that the COCA shall automatically cease or lose its significance within a period of three years from 5-11-2001 i. e. as on 4-11-2004. Hence, for all purposes the COCA is not in existence after 4-11 -2004. ( 5 ) IN the light of the above discussion, this court has looked into the facts of this case. At the time when the charge sheet was filed and Non-bailable Warrants were issued on 11-11-2004, the COCA lost its validity and the petitioner was arrested and was produced before the Court on 17-1-2005 and thereafter, the Court below remanded him to judicial custody. Since the arrest was made, and charge sheet was filed when COCA was not in existence and inasmuch the effective period of three years regarding the existence of coca had elapsed by that time, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to bail. Since the arrest was made, and charge sheet was filed when COCA was not in existence and inasmuch the effective period of three years regarding the existence of coca had elapsed by that time, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to bail. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be released on bail forthwith on his executing a bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand Only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of I Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge (Special Court), hyderabad. ( 7 ) BEFORE parting with this case, I would add my observations with regard to the maintainability of the COCA. ( 8 ) HAVING felt that the existing penal, procedural laws and the adjudicatory system which were designed to tackle normal crime is found inadequate to curb and control the powerful challenges of organized crime/ organized criminal syndicates, Act 42 of 2001 i. e. A. P. Control of Organized Crime Act, 2001 came into existence, which was in force for a period of three years. Now that period of three years has come to an end. It is not known as to why the Legislature thought it fit to restrict it only for a period of three years. No doubt, it is a draconian law, but at the same time, in view of the increase in white collar crimes and the organized criminal syndicates, the Government should have considered the extension of COCA beyond three years. ( 9 ) WHILE restricting the provisions of the coca only for a period of three years, no provision is made in the COCA to safeguard the actions that were initiated during the relevant period. In the absence of any savings clause, normally in my view, the entire action would automatically stand lapsed and the accused cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of the COCA. Hence, the legislature should have thought it fit to save the provisions as was done under the provisions of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. Under sub-section (4) of Section 1 of TADA, the government thought it fit in safeguarding the actions that took place during the existence of the said Act though it is also restricted. Hence, the legislature should have thought it fit to save the provisions as was done under the provisions of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. Under sub-section (4) of Section 1 of TADA, the government thought it fit in safeguarding the actions that took place during the existence of the said Act though it is also restricted. ( 10 ) HENCE, this Court is of the view that the Government may consider the matter and pass necessary orders in the light of the observations made hereinabove.