JUDGMENT :- These appeals are directed against the conviction of the appellants, for the offences punishable under Sections 397, 458, 342 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as, "M.C.O.C. Act"). They have been sentenced by the learned Special Judge under M.C.O.C. Act, at Mumbai, on conclusion of trial of MCOC Special Case No.16 of 2005 before him, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 years with fine of Rs.5,00,000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 397 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(ii) of the M.C.O.C. Act; rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.5,00,000/- or in default imprisonment for one year, on each of the two counts, for the offences under Section 3(2) and 3 (4) of the M.C.O.C. Act; rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- or in default imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 458 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; and rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/- or in default imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Facts which are material for deciding these appeals are as under :- The prosecution alleged that the appellants formed an organized crime syndicate and had committed dacoities in the past with the object of gaining pecuniary benefits for themselves and for the crime syndicate. They had so acted as members of such crime syndicate prior to 17th March, 2005. At about 4.05 to 4.50 a.m. on 17th March, 2005, they broke into the house of first informant Rajesh Balraj Rajani, armed with deadly weapons and having made preparation to cause hurt. They confined Rajesh Rajani and the other family members by tying their hands and legs. At that time the appellants were possessed of knives, iron rods etc. The appellants pointed knives and demanded keys of the cupboard. They took out cash and gold ornaments. The first informant untied himself, and challenged the offenders. One of the offenders was injured. Cries of the first informant and his wife resulted in one more offender entering the bed room and assaulting first informant and his wife. The offenders then fled in the car belonging to the first informant. They took out cash and gold ornaments. The first informant untied himself, and challenged the offenders. One of the offenders was injured. Cries of the first informant and his wife resulted in one more offender entering the bed room and assaulting first informant and his wife. The offenders then fled in the car belonging to the first informant. The first informant went to the police and an offence was registered. Police came to the spot, performed panchnama and tried to trace out finger prints. The car was traced on 18th March, 2005 near a restaurant. The finger prints from the car were also taken. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested on 19th March, 2005 at a guest house at Dahisar. Cash of Rs.89,320/- with gold ornaments were recovered under a panchnama. A juvenile offender was also arrested. The other two accused persons were also arrested and ornaments worth of Rs.5,14,917/- recovered. In the course of interrogation at the instance of appellants, two knives and one iron rod were recovered. The appellants were identified at the test identification parade. 3. In the course of investigation, Investigating Officer came to know of four appellants' complicity in similar offences in the past and, therefore, collected copies of previous chargesheets. On the basis of material collected, a proposal to apply provisions of MCOCA was made and on receipt of approval on 28th April, 2005, Assistant Commissioner of Police took over investigation. After completion of investigation, officer obtained requisite sanction from the Commissioner of Police, for prosecuting the appellants under the provisions of M.C.O.C. Act and then sent chargesheet to the Special Court. 4. The learned Judge of the Special Court for trial of cases under M.C.O.C. Act, charged the appellants of offences punishable under Sections 395, 397 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(1)(ii) & 3(2), 3(4) of the M.C.O.C. Act, Sections 458 and 342 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; and also Section 37(1)(a) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The appellants pleaded not guilty. They were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all 26 witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellants. 5. After considering the prosecution evidence in the light of defence of denial, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. The appellants pleaded not guilty. They were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all 26 witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellants. 5. After considering the prosecution evidence in the light of defence of denial, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. He acquitted them for the offence punishable under Section 37(1)(a) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Aggrieved by their conviction, the appellants are before this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With the help of both, I have gone through the evidence on record. 7. P.W. 1 Rajesh Rajani is the first informant. On the night of 16th March, 2005, when all members of his family were sleeping in their respective rooms, at about 4.00 a.m. of 17.3.2005, he heard some noise in the room and therefore got up. He saw two persons standing in front of him with their faces covered with handkerchief. He switched on the lights and his wife also got up. The two miscreants were having knives in their hands and they started threatening the victim with knives. One of them tied the first informant's hands by tearing bed sheet. The other miscreant was threatening P.W. 1 with knife and his wife, therefore, gave keys of the cupboard. The miscreants kept knives on the bed and opened the cupboard and started removing cash and jewellery. P.W. 1 untied his hands, picked up both the knives and when the miscreants saw this, they came towards P.W. 1 Rajesh. P.W. 1 claims to have fought with the knife resulting in bleeding injury to a miscreant. In the scuffle, handkerchiefs, with which the miscreants had covered, fell down. On hearing noise a third miscreant came with iron rod and hit P.W. 1 Rajesh. Again the hands of P.W. 1 Rajesh and his wife were tied by strips of bed sheet. The third miscreant started putting the jewellery and cash in a plastic bag. Then fourth miscreant came with P.W. 1 Rajesh's son Rahul. Rahul told P.W. 1 Rajesh that there was one more miscreant in the room of grant-parents and they had been tied. Rahul requested his father, i.e. Rajesh, not to fight with the miscreants and give them whatever they wanted because grandfather was injured and bleeding. Then fourth miscreant came with P.W. 1 Rajesh's son Rahul. Rahul told P.W. 1 Rajesh that there was one more miscreant in the room of grant-parents and they had been tied. Rahul requested his father, i.e. Rajesh, not to fight with the miscreants and give them whatever they wanted because grandfather was injured and bleeding. The miscreants then took Rahul downstairs to show them the way out of bungalow. They had changed into shirts of the first informant before leaving the place as their shirt had stains of blood. The miscreants also took away car of Rajesh. 8. According to P.W. 1 Rajesh the victims untied themselves. Police were called. The injured persons were taken to hospital for treatment. At about 6.30 a.m. P.W. 1 Rajesh gave written report stating that his car, cash and jewellery worth Rs.6,60,000/- was stolen. Witness had also given description of the miscreants in his report at Exh.10 which he had duly proved. Subsequently it transpired that in all property worth Rs.17,55,000/- had been taken away. The witness stated that in the course of investigation police told him that some jewellery had been recovered from some miscreants arrested by Dahisar Police an asked him to identify if the jewellery belonged to him. P.W. 1 Rajesh, his wife and his mother identified the jewellery as that which was stolen from their house. On 2nd April, 2005, the police called him to identify two shirts. Those shirts were identified by Rajesh as belonging to him and which were taken away by the miscreants. On 12.4.2005, Rajesh, his wife, his parents and his son were taken to Thane jail for test identification parade. The witness stated that he identified Yusuf Shaikh, accused No.1, Prem Amar Sai accused No.3, Navinchandra Kulkan Anand Bishta accused No.2 and Vijay Hari Shreshtha accused No.4, at the test identification parade. The cross examination of the witness does not disclose anything to warrant disbelief in what witnesses stated. 9. P.W. 2 Sonia is the wife of P.W. 1 Rajesh. P.W. 3 Rahul is son of P.W. 1 Rajesh. Both of them corroborated the version of P.W. 1 about the manner in which the incident took place, as also identification of accused persons at test identification parade. P.W. 2 Sonia seems to have identified the accused No.3 as Vijay Hari and accused No.2 as Navinchandra. P.W. 3 Rahul is son of P.W. 1 Rajesh. Both of them corroborated the version of P.W. 1 about the manner in which the incident took place, as also identification of accused persons at test identification parade. P.W. 2 Sonia seems to have identified the accused No.3 as Vijay Hari and accused No.2 as Navinchandra. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this would show that the identification of appellants by this witness was doubtful. As rightly pointed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is the identification of the person which matters and not his name, since the witness had seen these persons committing robbery, & had not known them by names. 10. P.W. 3 Rahul stated having identified the accused persons, name of one of whom was disclosed as Arjun. His cross examination also does not indicate anything to warrant disbelief in his evidence. 11. P.W. 12 Mohammed Iqbal Furniturewala is the Special Executive Officer who conducted test identification parade at Thane jail on the request of Thane police on 12.4.2005. He stated elaborately about the manner in which parades were held, selecting dummies etc. He stated that witnesses Rajesh, Rahul and Sonia identified the miscreants in two rounds of parade held by him. He proved the memorandum of test identification parade at Exh.33. He was cross examined at length. Though he stated that dummies selected were different in both rounds, he volunteered that there may be one or two common dummies in both rounds though he had requested the jail authorities to bring different dummies. 12. P.W. 4 Govardhandas Gaba is the panch of panchnama of spot at Exh.15 and seizure of articles at the spot. He also states about police collecting impressions of finger prints from the spot. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. He also proved at Exh.16 panchnama about finger prints which were found at the spot. 13. P.W. 5 PSI Rashid Shaikh stated that he received telephonic call in the early hours of 17.3.2005 about robbery and learnt that the victims had been taken to hospital. He states that he went to the hospital and recorded report of P.W. 1. He states that he performed panchnamas at Exh. Nos 15 and 16. He states that he recorded statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 and then made over the investigation to another officer. He states that he went to the hospital and recorded report of P.W. 1. He states that he performed panchnamas at Exh. Nos 15 and 16. He states that he recorded statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 and then made over the investigation to another officer. In cross examination he stated that he received telephone calls between 4.50 a.m. to 5.00 a.m. and immediately reached the hospital within five minutes and left the hospital at 6.35 a.m. to go to the spot of incident. 14. P.W. 6 Vijay Laxman Wadhwa is the panch on the disclosure made by the appellant Prem Amar Sai, accused No.3, on 28.3.1995. He stated that Prem Amar Sai agreed to show spot where the knives and iron rods were thrown. After making memorandum of statement, the face of the accused was veiled and then accused led police party and panchas to a nullah from where two knives and iron rods were recovered vide panchnama at Exh. 19A. The cross examination of this witness also does not show anything to warrant disbelief. 15. P.W. 7 Ravi Shetty, states that he was called on 29.3.2005 for witnessing panchnama where P.W. 1 and 2 identified their ornaments. This panchnama is at Exh.21. On 10.5.2005, witness was again called as panch to witness panchnama about valuation of property drawn up vide Exh.22. He proved this panchnama. 16. P.W. 8 Dr. Kamat stated that he examined victim and his father on 17.3.2005. He found that Balraj Rajani had incise muscle deep wound on left forearm. Rajesh Rajani had incise wound on right frontal region 2.5" x 3", scalp deep, which too was bleeding. He proved his certificate at Exh.29 and stated that the injuries caused to Balraj Rajani were possible by sharp objects like knives shown to him and injuries to Rajesh Rajani were likely to cause by the iron rod which was shown to him. 17. P.W. 9 Jaideep Mehta stated that on 19.3.2005, at about 2.45 a.m., he and another panch were called at Sanman Guest House at Dahisar (E). Police Naik took him at room No.104 which was opened by a person whose right hand had a bandage. Search of the room yielded a bag containing jewellery, cash etc. He stated that person in the room was appellant Yusuf Shaikh accused No.1. He identified the articles seized under panchnama. Police Naik took him at room No.104 which was opened by a person whose right hand had a bandage. Search of the room yielded a bag containing jewellery, cash etc. He stated that person in the room was appellant Yusuf Shaikh accused No.1. He identified the articles seized under panchnama. He stated that then they went to room No.103. Accused Yusuf called Navin and asked him to open the door. The door was opened by accused No.2. Navinchandra Bishta. A mobile phone of Siemens Company was found in possession of Navinchandra. Witness then pointed out to accused No.3 Prem Amar Sai as Navinchandra. He stated that as the accused persons were Nepalis, he could not remember their faces. He then proved the panchnama at Exh.29. In cross examination he denied suggestion that he signed the panchnama in the police station. 18. P.W. 11 Naresh Maheshwar, the Manager of Sanman Guest House, stated that on 17.3.2005, at about 3.30 p.m., five persons came to his guest house and stayed in two rooms i.e. room Nos. 103 and 104. He identified the appellants as the persons who had come to stay in the guest house. He stated that the police had arrested the occupants of those rooms. He proved the extract of his hotel register at Exh.31. P.W. 17 Kedarnath Yadav was serving as Manager at Sanman Guest House. He states about the incident on the night of 19.3.2005, when the police apprehended the accused. P.W. 20 Narendra Kale was a panch at the arrests and seizure carried by police at Sanman Guest House at about 1.45 p.m. on 19.3.2005. He proved the panchnama at Exh.50. He identified the accused persons who had been arrested and the articles which had been seized. He denied the suggestion that panchnama was read over to him before he came to depose in the witness box or that his signatures were obtained in the police station. P.W. 21 PSI Gulabrao Patil stated about receiving information which led to the raid at the Sanman Guest House on 19th March, 2005 at about 1.45 p.m. He identified the appellants and stated about the seizures effected. He also identified the articles seized. He stated that the panchnama at Exh.50 was written at his dictation. P.W. 21 PSI Gulabrao Patil stated about receiving information which led to the raid at the Sanman Guest House on 19th March, 2005 at about 1.45 p.m. He identified the appellants and stated about the seizures effected. He also identified the articles seized. He stated that the panchnama at Exh.50 was written at his dictation. P.W. 23 API Naresh Kasale, stated about the check up at Sanman Guest House at 2.00 a.m. to 2.30 a.m. on 19th March, 2005 and seizure effected there vide Exh. 26. Witness also identified articles seized at the Guest House. 19. P.W. 10 Dr. Pankaj Patil stated that on 17th March, 2005 at about 7.45 a.m., he examined accused No.3 Yusuf Shaikh, who had come on his own to the hospital. P.W. 10 Dr. Patil found two injuries, first, on upper arm near wrist joint 6 x 6 cm x 4 cm deep, and second wound below left nipple. He stated that the injured person gave history of injury caused as a result of fall. He referred the patient to Dr. Farookh Chinde. He proved his certificate at Exh.28 and certificate of Dr. Farookh Chinde at Exh.29. He denied the suggestion in cross examination that the accused No.1 had not visited the hospital and that he was deposing falsely at the instance of police. 20. P.W. 14 ASI Sadu Patade, stated that he was working as Store Keeper at Versova Police Station and had carried the Muddemal in sealed condition to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Kalina. He proved the copies of forwarding letters at Exh.37 and 38. His cross examination does not show that there was any tampering of the articles before they were sent to the Forensic Science laboratory. P.W.18 police constable Anil Sawant stated having carried some seized articles to the Forensic Science laboratory at Kalina vide Exh. Nos. 45, 45A and 46. He carried those samples from Nagpada Police Hospital. 21. P.W. 15 Yasharand Vishnu Javkar states about the seizure of car No.MH02/NA-3345 on 18.3.2005, vide panchnama at Exh.40. This is the car which had been stolen from the house of P.W. 1 Rajesh. P.W. 16 PSI Ashok More states about the seizure of this car. He states that after car was unlocked, two handkerchiefs were found inside the car which were seized vide Exh.42. 22. This is the car which had been stolen from the house of P.W. 1 Rajesh. P.W. 16 PSI Ashok More states about the seizure of this car. He states that after car was unlocked, two handkerchiefs were found inside the car which were seized vide Exh.42. 22. P.W. 24 Police Inspector, Arundhari Rane stated that she took over investigation in this crime on 26.3.2005 and caused blood samples of the accused persons to be taken and sent those samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory. She also stated about interrogation of accused Prem Amar Sai vide Exh.19 which led to discovery of two knives and iron rod. She identified those weapon. She stated that she had called the complainant for identification of the articles seized and drawn up panchnama at Exh.21. She stated that she had recorded statements of some of witnesses, seized two shirts, obtained blood samples of the first informant and his relations, and forwarded the same to the Laboratory. 23. P.W. 25 Police Inspector Mohandas Sankhe stated that he had caused test identification parade to be held after he took over investigation from Police Inspector Arundhati Rane. He stated that the valuation of the ornament was done vide Exh.63. He collected the medical reports in respect of witnesses Sonia Rajani and Poonam Rajani vide Exh.64. He stated that some of the articles seized i.e. mobile phones hand set, wrist watches etc. were returned to the first informant and his father after obtaining bond vide Exh.65. One of the miscreants Arjun Raul was juvenile and therefore, was produced before the Juvenile Welfare Board, but ran away. He stated that A.C.P. Walanj filed chargesheet in this case. The report from the Forensic Science Laboratory at Exh.60 shows that no blood was detected on the two knives and iron rod. Bush shirt, pillow cover were found to have stains of blood Group 'A' which was same as the sample sent vide Exh. 4 and 5 in the report dated 10.6.2005. Blood group of all accused persons was found to be 'A'. The blood group of father of first informant Balraj Rajani, was found to be 'O'. Blood group of first informant Rajesh could not be determined as the result was inconclusive. Since such reports are frequently submitted at trials, a comment has become necessary. Blood group of all accused persons was found to be 'A'. The blood group of father of first informant Balraj Rajani, was found to be 'O'. Blood group of first informant Rajesh could not be determined as the result was inconclusive. Since such reports are frequently submitted at trials, a comment has become necessary. When report about blood sample of a living person is inconclusive, there is no reason why a fresh sample cannot be taken and a fresh report called. It is enigmatic that Investigating Officers routinely have blood samples of living persons sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, for blood grouping when these tests could be carried out even in pathological laboratories of Civil Hospitals. This would first reduce the pressure of work on Forensic Science Laboratories and secondly yield positive results. Copy of this judgment may be sent to the Home Secretary, Director General of Police, Bombay and Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Kalina, Bombay so that necessary instructions are issued by them. 24. The above evidence clearly shows that all the appellants had committed house breaking by night in order to commit a dacoity. They had been duly identified by the first informant and his family members at test identification parade as also in the Court. Some of the stolen articles recovered from the appellants were duly identified by the victims. The evidence of P.W. 10 Dr. Pankaj Patil about injuries as appellant Yusuf would corroborate the version of the first informant Rajesh, about his injuring one of the miscreants. In the course of dacoity, first informant and his father were injured and their injuries have been duly proved. Considering this there can be no doubt about appellants' complicity in offences punishable under Sections 397, 458 and 342 of the Penal Code. 25. This takes me to the question of application of provisions of M.C.O.C. Act. P.W. 25 Police Inspector Mohandas Sankhe stated that in the course of investigation he came to know that the accused persons were involved in similar offences in the past in various police stations and therefore, collected details of past chargesheets. He found that the accused persons were committing organized crimes by using different names as disclosed in the chargesheets. He stated that he addressed a letter to the Finger Print Bureau for collecting finger print of these accused persons. He found that the accused persons were committing organized crimes by using different names as disclosed in the chargesheets. He stated that he addressed a letter to the Finger Print Bureau for collecting finger print of these accused persons. He received the report from the Bureau confirming that the accused No.1 Yusuf Shaikh was the same person who had committed offences by using name as Rajesh Ramsingh Yadav and Bunty Yunus Shaikh @ Akbar. He proved the report at Exh.61. He then sent the proposal for prior approval for applying provisions of M.C.O.C. Act which was granted vide Exh.62. The investigation was then handed over to A.C.P. Walanj and thereafter to A.C.P Mahajan. 26. P.W. 13 PSI Vishwanath Phatangare, stated that he had investigated into crime No.419 of 2002, reported at Ville Parle Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and had filed chargesheet against four accused persons namely 1) Ashok Jaikishan Joshi, 2) Hamraj Durga Sahi, 3) Akbar @ Bunty Yunus Shaikh and 4) Mahesh Laxman Rathod. He proved copy of chargesheet at Exh.35 of which cognizance had been taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court Andheri. He identified the accused No.1 Yusuf Ahmed Shaikh as the person whom he had chargesheeted as Akbar @ Bunty Yunus Shaikh. He stated in his cross examination that the case was still pending before the trial Court. The evidence of P.W. 13 PSI Phatangare would show that chargesheet in Crime No.419 of 2002 was filed by him against accused No.1 Yusuf for offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code of which cognizance was taken by a learned Metropolitan Magistrate. He identified accused No.1 Yusuf as the same person who had been prosecuted as Akbar @ Bunty Yunus Shaikh in that case. Appellant Yusuf was asked about this evidence in question no.38 of his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he admitted that he was so prosecuted by PSI Phatangare. According to the learned APP this evidence would show that accused No.1 Yusuf had been prosecuted for housebreaking and theft in the past, within 10 years of commission of the present offence. 27. According to the learned APP this evidence would show that accused No.1 Yusuf had been prosecuted for housebreaking and theft in the past, within 10 years of commission of the present offence. 27. P.W. 19 API Vasudeo Jamdade stated that he had investigated into crime No.193 of 2004 reported under Section 379 of IPC at Ville Parle Police Station in respect of theft of bicycle. He stated that accused Vijay Harishrestha was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five months upon pleading guilty in the same crime. He identified the accused No.4 Vijay Harishreshta as person who had been convicted on his sending chargesheet. He also states that same Vijay Harishrestha had been charge sheeted by him in crime No.267 of 2004, again for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code for bicycle theft. He stated that in the said crime Vijay Harishreshta was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, on his pleading guilty. He proved the copies of chargesheets alongwith the orders of Court at Exh.48 colly. It is worthy of note that both the convictions and sentences imposed are by the same learned Metropolitan Magistrate, on the same date 28th October, 2004. Appellant accused No.4 Vijay was asked about this evidence in Q. No.47 of his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and admitted this evidence to be true. Therefore, though the learned counsel for appellants submits that this could have been ideally proved by getting a report from Finger Print Bureau, in view of admission of appellant, in his statement under Section 313, this evidence was rightly believed by the learned Special Judge. 28. P.W. 22 Ramesh Revankar stated that he had investigated into crime No.315 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in which three accused persons by name Rajesh Ramsingh Yadav, Kali Amar Sahi and Kulkan Anand Bisht, were prosecuted. He stated that those persons were convicted by the Court for these offences. He identified Rajesh Ramsing Yadav to be accused No.1 Yusuf Ahmed Shaikh. He identified Kali Amar Sahi as accused No.3 Prem Amar Sahi and Kulkand Anand Bisht as accused No.2 Navinchandra Bisht. He proved copy of chargesheet as well as Judgment at Exh.53 (colly.). This judgment of conviction is on the accused persons' pleading guilty. He identified Rajesh Ramsing Yadav to be accused No.1 Yusuf Ahmed Shaikh. He identified Kali Amar Sahi as accused No.3 Prem Amar Sahi and Kulkand Anand Bisht as accused No.2 Navinchandra Bisht. He proved copy of chargesheet as well as Judgment at Exh.53 (colly.). This judgment of conviction is on the accused persons' pleading guilty. Accused No.3 Prem Amar Sai and Accused No.2 Navinchandra were asked about this evidence in their statements under Sections 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide question Nos. 52 and 53 respectively. Both of them admitted that they were so prosecuted by P.W. 22 PSI Revankar. Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that filing of this second chargesheet is also proved. The learned counsel for appellants submitted that since persons convicted had different names, the best evidence to prove that they were the same as appellants would be to prove their identity by their finger prints which ought to have been taken at the time of their convictions. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, responded by drawing my attention to evidence of Police Inspector Sankhe discussed above and the report of Finger Print Bureau at Exh.61. 29. The report of at Exh.61 is about comparing finger prints of only appellant Yusuf with previous finger prints of Akbar @ Bunty in Crime No.419 of 2002 of Ville Parle police Station and finger prints of Rakesh Yadav in Crime No.315 of 2004 of Andheri Police Station. The Director of Finger Print Bureau found the prints to be identical thereby proving that Yusuf had been prosecuted in Crime No.315 of 2004 of Andheri Police Station as well. It is, however, not clear as to why this procedure was not followed in respect of other appellants as well. Previous convictions or chargesheets of persons assuming different names could be proved by examining the officer who took the finger prints and sent them to the finger print bureau in the past and the officer who took finger prints of persons being prosecuted and then seeking report of the bureau which is admissible without formal proof. However, in view of admission of this evidence by appellants Navinchandra & Prem Amar Sai, this aspect need not detain the Court. However, in view of admission of this evidence by appellants Navinchandra & Prem Amar Sai, this aspect need not detain the Court. It is, thus, clear from this evidence that each of the appellants had been charge sheeted in the past twice for offences which were committed for pecuniary gain and which attracted punishment of imprisonment of more than 2 years. 30. P.W. 26 A.C.P. Arun Walanj states about the investigation carried by him after the provisions of M.C.O.C. Act were applied. He stated that he submitted the investigation papers to the Commissioner of Police and personally met and discussed about the investigation with the Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner of Police then accorded sanction to prosecute the accused persons under M.C.O.C. Act vide Exh.68. He then filed chargesheet. As already observed, there is enough evidence to prove the complicity of appellants in offences punishable under Sections 397, 458 & 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in robbing victim Rajani's family, injuring them by deadly weapons, after breaking into their house in the night and confining them. In view of the evidence discussed in the preceding paragraphs, their having been chargesheeted more than once in the preceding ten years for similar offences aimed at gaining pecuniary advantage is also proved. Therefore, their conviction by the learned Special Judge for offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the M.C.O.C. Act are also justified. 31. The learned counsel for appellants submitted that appellants are just petty thieves and not members of any organised crime syndicate, for control whereof M.C.O.C. Act, has been enacted. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, their involvement and being chargesheeted more than once in the past for offences attracting punishment of 3 years or more is all that is required to be proved and which has been proved. He submitted that inspite of their previous convictions, the appellants have dared to commit this offence, which amounts to continuing unlawful activity which is a menace to the society. I agree with the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The contention of the learned counsel for appellants that sentences imposed are harsh has also be rejected given the incorrigible nature of the appellants. 32. The appeals are, therefore dismissed. Appeals dismissed.