JUDGMENT:- By this appeal, the appellant challenges his conviction for offence punishable under Sections 3(l)(ii) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act ("MCOC Act", for short) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of rupees five lacs and conviction for offence punishable under Section 384 read with Section 511 of the Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of rupees two thousand imposed upon him by the learned Judge, Special Court, under MCOC Act, at Nagpur. 2. Facts, which led to the appellant's prosecution, are as under : The appellant, along with absconding accused Anil Paunipagar, were prosecuted by the State for their involvement in organised crime in Nagpur. On 28-6-2001, When Ashok Moudekar was in his shop at 6.30 p.m., the appellant, a member of gang of Anil Paunipagar, entered his shop and started threatening Ashok. He demanded that Ashok should pay him Rs.1,000/- by way of Khandani (protection money). The appellant threatened Ashok that if the demand is not fulfilled, then the appellant and other members of the gang will cause hurt to Ashok and his servants. On receipt of the complaint of Ashok, the police registered an offence under Section 384 of the Penal Code. The appellant was caught in another crime bearing No.3092 of 2001 on 2-7-2001. 3. In course of investigation, the police found that the appellant, as a member of absconding Anil Paunipagar's gang, had created a terror in Dharampeth and Gokulpeth areas by making demands of money. In course of investigation, a motor-cycle bearing registration No.MH 31 R 79 was recovered from the appellant. The motor-cycle belonged to Devendrasingh, who had been paid only a part of consideration by the appellant. When Devendrasingh had demanded balance of consideration, the appellant threatened him. 4. Since the investigation revealed appellant's involvement in offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOC Act, Police Inspector Shende, Investigating Officer, made a proposal for application of the provisions of the said Act to the Additional Commissioner of Police through proper channel. The Additional Commissioner of Police accorded approval for recording information of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOC Act. The investigation thereafter proceeded in order to find out whether there was material to chargesheet the accused for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOC Act. The Additional Commissioner of Police accorded approval for recording information of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOC Act. The investigation thereafter proceeded in order to find out whether there was material to chargesheet the accused for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOC Act. The further investigation was carried out by Assistant Commissioner of Police Shri. Chavan. After completion of investigation, the entire record of investigation was forwarded to the Additional Director General of Police with a proposal to sanction prosecution of the appellant for offences punishable under MCOC Act. The Additional Director General of Police accorded sanction, whereupon the charge-sheet was sent up. Anil Paunipagar, however, continued to abscond. 5. The learned Judge, Special Court under MCOC Act, Nagpur, charged the appellant of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of MCOC Act, Section 384 read with Section 511 of the Penal Code and Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and hence was put on trial. In its attempt to bring home guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined in all 18 witnesses. Upon consideration of the evidence tendered in the light of the defence of denial taken, the learned Trial Judge held that the appellant was involved in continuing unlawful activity as a member of organised crime syndicate with the object of gaining pecuniary benefits. The learned Judge also held that the appellant had indulged in an activity prohibited by law, which was a cognizable offence having punishment of more than three years prescribed therefor as a member of organised crime syndicate and as such member had threatened Ashok Moudekar, Proprietor of Sadhana Vastralaya, to induce him by putting him under a fear to deliver a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Consequently, the learned Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him, as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been filed. 6. I have heard Shri. V.M. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri. S. S. Doifode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case rested on the complaint of Ashok Moudekar. Since Ashok Moudekar died, truthfulness of complaint of Ashok was not proved. Therefore, there is in fact no evidence of any attempt to extort money from Ashok. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case rested on the complaint of Ashok Moudekar. Since Ashok Moudekar died, truthfulness of complaint of Ashok was not proved. Therefore, there is in fact no evidence of any attempt to extort money from Ashok. The learned counsel submitted that since the main foundation of the entire investigation was thus removed, the whole edifice must collapse. He submitted that apart from absence of evidence of complainant Ashok, the fact that PW 4 Pravin, who was serving with Ashok Moudekar, failed to specifically state about any threat by the appellant, should have also persuaded the learned Trial Judge to acquit the appellant. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that unfortunate fact of death of complainant should not result in the complaint being falsified, if the evidence revealed that the complaint was truthful. He submitted hat the evidence tendered in the case categorically shows that the appellant was involved in extortion and had threatened Ashok in order to demand money. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that the charge recited that there were as many as three criminal cases and two chapter cases instituted against the appellant and seven proceedings against absconding accused Anil Paunipagar, all instituted within the preceding period of ten years. Besides this, accused Anil Paunipagar also faced action under the National Security Act and Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. 9. As far as existence of these proceedings is concerned, the prosecution examined one Mahadeo Somkuwar as PW 1 to prove a First Information Report recorded by him at Exhibit 27 on 9-11-1999. This report is in respect of demand of money by accused Anil Paunipagar and his associate appellant Bhaya Rajput. The witness had categorically stated that Anil Paunipagar and his gang were involved in extorting money from the shopkeepers of Gokulpeth area. The witness stated in cross-examination that he had no concern with the appellant, but the appellant used to always remain in the company of Anil Paunipagar and in the assault dated 10-5-2000, the appellant was also one of the assailants. 10. PW 22 Bhagwan Somkuwar is a Tea Stall Owner in Dharampeth area, who too stated about the activities of Anil Paunipagar and his gang, who had killed his brother Ishwar, father of PW 1 Mahadeo Somkuwar. He stated that he made a report on 10-5-2000, copy thereof is at Exhibit 29. 10. PW 22 Bhagwan Somkuwar is a Tea Stall Owner in Dharampeth area, who too stated about the activities of Anil Paunipagar and his gang, who had killed his brother Ishwar, father of PW 1 Mahadeo Somkuwar. He stated that he made a report on 10-5-2000, copy thereof is at Exhibit 29. The cross-examination of this witness revealed that the appellant was an associate of Anil Paunipagar. The witness specifically denied that on 10-5-2000, the appellant did not come to his house. 11. PW 3 Devendrasingh stated that the appellant had purchased a motor-cycle bearing registration No.MH 31 R 79 from him for a sum of Rs.31,000/-, but had paid only Rs.15,000/-, agreeing to pay the balance of Rs.16,000/- in two to four days. However, inspite of the fact that the appellant had received delivery of motor-cycle on the same day, he did not pay the balance of consideration of Rs.16,000/-. PW 3 Devendrasingh could not locate the appellant for some time and when after 1½ months he saw the appellant and asked for remaining consideration, the appellant threatened him. He did not lodge a complaint with the police out of fear on learning that the appellant was a goonda. The cross-examination of this witness also does not reveal anything to discredit his testimony. 12. The evidence of PW 5 Raju Patel and PW 6 Pappu Bhadoriya, who had shops in the area, is in the same vein. 13. PW 4 Pravin Aatakar was serving with deceased Ashok Moudekar as his driver. He stated that he used to be in Ashok Moudekar's shop. In the evening of 28-6-2001, appellant Bhaya Rajput had come to appellant's shop and demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. When Ashok Moudekar told the person that he did not have money, the person making demand told Ashok Moudekar to keep the amount ready next day; failing which, he will bring two or three persons in the shop. He stated that his master Ashok Moudekar lodged a report with the police. He identified the copy of the report lodged by his master at Exhibit 34 as also the signature of his master on FIR at Exhibit 35. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of PW 4 Pravin would show that no threat was given by the appellant. He identified the copy of the report lodged by his master at Exhibit 34 as also the signature of his master on FIR at Exhibit 35. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of PW 4 Pravin would show that no threat was given by the appellant. What amounts to a threat does not depend on the words used, but also on the context. Telling a shop-keeper to keep the amount ready on the next day; failing which, the person making demand would bring two or three persons in the shop cannot be interpreted to mean that the person making demand was going to bring two or three customers to boost up the sale of victim's shop. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no threat, has to be rejected. PW 4 Pravin's evidence is sufficient to show that Ashok Moudekar was threatened and asked to comply with the demand of Rs.1,000/-. The witness undoubtedly admitted in cross-examination that he did not know the name of the appellant, when the appellant first visited the shop. He came to know the name of the appellant from his master as Bhaya Rajput. However, this does not reduce the value of his identification of the appellant as Bhaya Rajput and his further statement that Bhaya Rajput had demanded money from Ashok Moudekar. 15. PW 7 Head Constable Babarao Pendhare stated that on 16-11-2000 at about 10 a.m. when he was on patrolling duty in Dharampeth area, one person started running on seeing him and police staff. He caught the said person, who is the appellant. He had with him an iron knife, which is generally used for killing pigs. The witness stated that he brought the appellant to Police Station Sitabuldi, seized the knife and registered Crime No.3180 of 2000 vide FIR at Exhibit 41. The charge-sheet in the case was filed in the Court vide Exhibit 42. Even the cross-examination of this witness does not indicate anything to warrant disbelief in his version. 16. PW 8 Ravindra Page provided the documents about the house of Anil Paunipagar. 17. The charge-sheet in the case was filed in the Court vide Exhibit 42. Even the cross-examination of this witness does not indicate anything to warrant disbelief in his version. 16. PW 8 Ravindra Page provided the documents about the house of Anil Paunipagar. 17. PW 9 Retired Special Inspector General of Police Shri. Raut stated that at the relevant time, he was working as Additional Commissioner of Police at Nagpur and had received a proposal for applying the provisions of MCOC Act to the crime registered against the appellant. He stated that after examining the proposal and finding that there was substance in the proposal, he accorded his approval vide Exhibit 48 and assigned the investigation of crime to Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sitabuldi Division. The cross-examination of this witness also does not disclose that there was any deficiency in his according approval or assigning investigation to Assistant Commissioner of Police, that is, the officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 18. PW 10 Manohar is an employee of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, who had provided necessary information about telephone standing in the name of Archana Anil Pauni pagar. 19. PW 11 Police Inspector Shende had initiated investigation and sent proposal to the Additional Commissioner of Police. He gave details of the material collected by him for making a proposal to the Additional Commissioner of Police. His cross-examination also does not reveal any deficiency in the procedure adopted by him. 20. PW 12 Assistant Police Inspector Bhusare stated that on 5-11-1995 he received a telephonic call informing him that Anil Paunipagar armed with knife was disturbing public peace at Alankar Talkies. He, therefore, went and caught Anil Paunipagar with the knife. Anil Paunipagar, who was injured, was sent for medical examination. He proved the FIR and charge-sheet in that case. 21. PW 13 Police Sub-Inspector Lokhande stated that on 13-10-1997 he received a complaint from one Kishore Kosare that Anil Paunipagar and his two associates had entered the house of Kishore Kosare and threatened him. He rushed to the spot. Anil Paunipagar had already escaped. He recorded FIR of Kishore Kosare, which he duly proved. He also stated that the complaint of one Rama Sharma was assigned to him for investigation, which too revealed criminal activities of Anil Paunipagar. He proved the relevant FIRs and charge-sheet at Exhibits 60 to 63. 22. He rushed to the spot. Anil Paunipagar had already escaped. He recorded FIR of Kishore Kosare, which he duly proved. He also stated that the complaint of one Rama Sharma was assigned to him for investigation, which too revealed criminal activities of Anil Paunipagar. He proved the relevant FIRs and charge-sheet at Exhibits 60 to 63. 22. PW 14 Assistant Police Inspector Khobragade stated that on 29-6-2001 he received the complaint of Ashok Moudekar and registered the crime, which has ultimately led to filing of the present charge-sheet. He stated that the appellant is a member of the gang of Anil Paunipagar. His cross-examination also does not reveal anything to disbelieve that the complaint given by Ashok Moudekar was not correct. He proved FIR at Exhibit 65. 23. PW 15 Police Sub-Inspector Tidke also stated about involvement of the gang in criminal activities and proved FIR at Exhibit 67. 24. PW 16 Police Sub-Inspector Kunda Bhandarkar stated that on 9-9-1996 when she was on duty near Alankar Talkies in Dharampeth beat, at aboutll.30 p.m. she saw a person holding knife giving threats to people. With the help of the staff, she caught the said person, who identified himself as Anil Paunipagar. She apprehended him and caused the knife to be seized. She too proved the FIR and charge-sheet at Exhibits 69 and 70. 25. PW 17 Shri. Kashyap, Additional Director General of Police, stated that he received the proposal for sanction of prosecution of the appellant under MCOC Act vide Exhibit 74 and after examining the entire proposal, he accorded sanction vide Exhibit 75. His cross-examination also does not reveal any non-application of mind. 26. PW 18 Assistant Commissioner of Police Chavan had conducted investigation in this case and he gave details of the investigation conducted and the proposal made to the Additional Director General of Police. 27. The evidence tendered at the trial recounted above would categorically show the complicity of the gang of Anil Paunipagar in the activities of coercion, intimidation and extortion in order to make unlawful pecuniary benefits as members of organised crime syndicate. The evidence would also show that as a part of these continuing unlawful activities on 28-6-2001, the appellant had gone to the shop of Ashok Moudekar and threatened him and made a demand of a sum of Rs.1,000/-. The evidence would also show that as a part of these continuing unlawful activities on 28-6-2001, the appellant had gone to the shop of Ashok Moudekar and threatened him and made a demand of a sum of Rs.1,000/-. In view of this, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Judge was in error in holding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of MCOC Act or Section 384 read with Section 511 of the Penal Code. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of rupees five lacs imposed under Section 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of MCOC Act or rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of rupees two thousand for offence punishable under Section 384 read with Section 511 of the Penal Code cannot be said to be harsh, considering the nature of activities in which the appellant was involved. In view of this, the conviction of the appellant and sentence imposed upon him do not call for interference. 28. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.