JUDGMENT : - V.L. ACHLIYA, J. The appellant (Orig. accused No. 1) has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 7/02/2009 passed by Learned Special Judge (Under the M.C.O.C. Act, 1999), Greater Bombay, in MCOC Special Case Nos. 4 of 2008 and MCOC Special Case No. 4-A of 2008. By said judgment and order the learned Spl. Judge convicted the appellant u/s 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer RI for one year. The appellant was convicted u/s 326 of I.P.C and sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer SI for two years. The appellant also convicted u/s 506(ii) of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for three years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer SI for six months. The appellant was also convicted u/s. 3(1)(ii) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-, in default further RI for three years. The appellant was also convicted u/s 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-, in default further RI for three years. The appellant/accused No. 1 was also convicted u/s 3 r.w. Section 25, 27 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to suffer RI for three years and pay fine 0 Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer SI for three months. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order the appellant has preferred this appeal on various grounds as set out in the memo of appeal. 2. In brief the facts of the prosecution case are as follows: (i) In nutshell, it is the case of the prosecution that in the year 2007, Ashok Mohnani (PW8) and his partners were running real estate business in the name of their company "Ekta Developers" from their office located at Ekta Terraces, Mahaveer Nagar, Kandiwali (W), Mumbai. Laxmikant Saliar (PW1)-the complainant was working with said company as Sales Executive and Ashok Manik (PW2) was working with said company as Senior Sales Executive. Laxmikant Saliar (PW1)-the complainant was working with said company as Sales Executive and Ashok Manik (PW2) was working with said company as Senior Sales Executive. (ii) On 21/12/2007 at about 4.00 p.m. two person made forcible entry in the office premises of said company at Kandiwali and inquired about the owner of the premises and told the person present there that "Poojariko phone kiya kya ? Phone nahi kiya to dekh lenge". One amongst them who was holding handgun in his hand and looking like Nepali entered into the premises and fired two shots from the handgun. One of the bullet fired by that person hit Ashok Manik (PW2). Before firing the bullet from the gun in his hand, the person pointed gun towards Ashok Manik (PW2) and stated that "Madharchod, kal tak Ravi Poojariko phone aana chahiye, nahi to dekh lenge". After causing bullet injury to Ashok Manik (PW2), the person ran away from the premises. Laxmikant Salian (PW1) and other person present in the office brought Manik (PW2) to Bhagwati Hospital. Ashok Mohnani (PW8)-the owner of the Ekta Developing Company was informed about the incident. Police officials who reached at Bhagwati Hospital, recorded the complaint lodged by Laxmikant Salian (PW1). Manik was subsequently shifted to Lilavati Hospital. On the basis of complaint lodged by Laxmikant Salian (PW1), the offence u/s. 452, 384 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered vide C.R. No. 379 of 2007 with Police Station, Kandiwali against unknown persons. Spot of incident was inspected in presence of panch witnesses and panchanama was carried out. The clothes of injured were seized. During the course of investigation, the statement of Manik (PW2) the injured, Vijay Londhe (PW3), Anupkumar Mehta (PW7), Ashok Mohnani (PW8), Ramesh Bijlani (PW22), Vivek Mohnani (PW23) and other witnesses were recorded. (iii) During the course of recording of statement of owners and partners of Ekta Developing Company/Ekta Supreme Housing Company i.e. Ashok Mohnani (PW 8), Ramesh Bijlani (PW 22), and Vivek Mohanani (PW 23), it was revealed that on and before 21/12/2007 they received calls from gangster Ravi Pujari, who demanded extortion money from them. (iv) On 28/01/2008, the officers of C.I.D. (Operation) D.C.B. C.I.D., Mumbai, after receipt of some reliable information from their informant, laid down trap at Palace Theatre, Byculla (E), Mumbai. (iv) On 28/01/2008, the officers of C.I.D. (Operation) D.C.B. C.I.D., Mumbai, after receipt of some reliable information from their informant, laid down trap at Palace Theatre, Byculla (E), Mumbai. In the trap laid down, they caught two persons viz. Suraj Puran Bahadur (original accused No. 1) and Ravindra Dilbahadur Thapa @ RD (original accused No. 2). In the personal search of Suraj Bahadur, one hand gun loaded with live cartridge and one live cartridge was found in his possession. In the personal search of accused No. 2, one knife, one mobile phone and one mobile simcard was found in his possession. Those articles were seized in presence of panch witnesses Mohammad Chand (PW5) and constable Asam Farooqui (PW6). Offences u/s. 3 and 25 of the Arms Act and section 37(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act, registered against both the accused with Police Station Byculla vide C.R. No. 1 of 2008. The weapons recovered from said accused were seized and sealed. During the course of inquiry with them, it was revealed that they were involved in said incident of firing in the office of Ekta Developing Company at Kandiwali in respect of which C.R. No. 379 of 2007, registered with Police Station, Kandiwali. It was further revealed that the firearm which was recovered from the possession of accused No.1 was used in commission of said offence. Therefore, the custody of both the accused was obtained in C.R. No. 379 of 2007. The investigation of said case was taken over by Crime Branch. (v) During the course of investigation it was revealed that at the behest of notorious criminal Ravi Pujari, the wanted accused persons viz. 1. Rajendra Somalal Chaudhary aged about 25 yrs. (2) Anna @ Thambi, aged about 22 yrs. (3) Ashraf, aged about 22 yrs. (4) Rahul, aged about 19 yrs. (5) Bunty aged about 27 yrs., and their other associates had hatched a criminal conspiracy to carry out an attack at the office of Ekta Developer at Kandivali (W), Mumbai, as the owner of that firm was not paying heed to the demand of extortion made by their gang leader Ravi Pujari. (vi) During further course of investigation, statement of one Kiran Sahil (PW13) came to be recorded which has led to arrest of accused Nos. 3 and 4. (vi) During further course of investigation, statement of one Kiran Sahil (PW13) came to be recorded which has led to arrest of accused Nos. 3 and 4. The muddemal property seized during the course of investigation i.e. handgun/deshi katta with the cartridge was sent to ballistic expert. The information in respect of the call details of mobile phones and sim-cards seized at the instance of accused Nos. 3 and 4, and phone calls received by PW 7, PW 8, PW 22 and PW 23 as well as land line phones obtained from Tata Communication, Vodafone and MTNL. The statement of the officials of said telephone companies were recorded. In the course of investigation the confessional statement of accused Nos. 1 and 2 were recorded. Offences u/s. 3 and 4 of the M.C.O.C. Act were added during the course of investigation. On completion of investigation, the papers were produced before the competent authority for seeking requisite sanction u/s. 23 of M.C.O.C. Act, 1999 as well as under the Arms Act. After obtaining sanction, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, M.C.O.C. Act, Greater Bombay, which was numbered as Spl. Case No. 4/2008. MCOC Special Case No. 4-A of 2008 is a charge-sheet against Accused No. 1 Suraj and Accused No. 2 Ravindra u/s 3, 25, 27 of Arms Act. It is merged and tried with MCOC Case No. 4 of 2008 being a part of same transaction of commission of offence in question. (vii) The appellant along with accused Nos. 2 to 4 were charged for the commission of offence punishable under sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), r/w 3(4), 3(1)(ii), r/w 3(2), 3(1)(ii), r/w 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOC) section 452, 384 and 307 r/w 120(B) of the I.P.C. Section 25(1-B)(a), 25(1-B)(a) and section 27(1) of the Arms Act and Section 37 r/w 135 of the Bombay Police Act. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed to be tried. Hence case proceeded against the accused. (viii) The learned Special Judge (MCOC Act) Gr. Bombay by judgment and Order dated 7/2/2009 acquitted the accused Nos. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed to be tried. Hence case proceeded against the accused. (viii) The learned Special Judge (MCOC Act) Gr. Bombay by judgment and Order dated 7/2/2009 acquitted the accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, section 452, 384, 307 r/w Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Section 3 r/w Section 25, 27 of the Indian Arms Act and section 37 r/w section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, whereas convicted the appellant as stated in para (1) above. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. Najmi, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Bhonsale, the learned APP for the State. We have carefully perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge as well as oral and documentary evidence adduced before the trial court. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 33 witnesses. On due consideration of the evidence on record the learned Spl. Judge has found the appellant guilty of offences u/s 326, 452, 506(2) of IPC, Section 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act and Section 3 r/w 25, 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 5. In order to hold the appellant, guilty of offence u/s 326, 452 and 506(2) of IPC, and Section 3 r/w 25, 27 of the Indian Arms Act, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimony of Laxmikant Salian (PW1) the complainant and eye-witness to the incident dated 21/12/2007, Ashok Manik (PW 2) the person who sustained the bullet injury in said incident, Vijaya Vithoba Londhe (PW 3), the another eye-witness to the said incident. Waman Dhondu Sapre (PW 4), the Special Executive Magistrate, who conducted the test identification parade on 27/2/2008 in which the eye-witnesses have identified the appellant/accused No. 1 as culprit. The prosecution has further relied upon the testimony of Mohamm Chand (PW5) and Asam Abdul Farooqi (PW 6) on the point of recovery of firearm from the possession of appellant/accused No. 1 during the trap laid down on 28/1/2008 which was found to be used in commission of offence in the incident of firing occurred on 21/12/2007 in the premises of Ekta Builder. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of Anupkumar Mehta (PW 7), Harishchandra Martal (PW 9). Smt. Vimal Patil (PW 11), Rajesh Molusane (PW 12). Dr. Shashtri (PW 14) attached to Lilavati Hospital, Shivaji Badkhe (PW 15), the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who recorded the confessional statement of appellant/accused No. 1., Dr. Majoj Ahire (PW 17), the medical officer, who treated Ashok Manik (PW 2) in Bhagwati Hospital. Prosecution has examined Vasudeo Patil (PW 19), the ballistic expert. Raju Gopal Nair (PW 29) the panch witness on the point of seizure of handkerchief at the instance of appellant/accused No. 1, PSI Ajay Sawant (PW 30), who arrested the appellant/accused No. 1 on 28/1/2008, PSI Giridhar Nakul Yadav, who recorded the FIR lodged by PW 1. The prosecution has also relied on testimony of Firoz Rajahamed Patel (PW 32) on the point of sanction obtained and ACP Tejasingh Rupchand Chavan (PW 33) the investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and filed charge-sheet in the case. 6. If we consider the case of the prosecution, in the light of the evidence adduced to prove the guilt against appellant/accused No. 1, then the prosecution has adduced sufficient evidence to prove the complicity of appellant in commission of offence i.e. incident dated 21/12/2007. 7. The prosecution has examined Laxmikant Keshav Salian (PW 1), the complainant, whose testimony is at Exh.-13 as eye-witness and complainant in the case. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution and narrated the incident dated 21/12/2007 occurred in the office of Ekta Builder at Kandivali. He has categorically deposed that on 21/12/2007, at about 4 p.m. while he was present in the office and discussing about work with Mrs. Shashi Karkera and Ashok Manik, one person hit the glass door of the cabin by foot. The person who was looking as Nepali and wearing white shirt, blue jeans pant and having red scarf with small dots tied over his head and holding a silver colour pistol in his hands entered into office premises. After reaching near Reception area he pointed the gun in his hands towards Ashok Manik (PW 2) and said "Madarchod kaltak Ravi Pujariko phone ana chahiye nahi to dekh lega." Thereafter that person came forward and fired at Ashok Manik. The first shot was misfired. Then he fired second shot towards Ashok Manik. After reaching near Reception area he pointed the gun in his hands towards Ashok Manik (PW 2) and said "Madarchod kaltak Ravi Pujariko phone ana chahiye nahi to dekh lega." Thereafter that person came forward and fired at Ashok Manik. The first shot was misfired. Then he fired second shot towards Ashok Manik. The bullet tired from the gun, hit the shoulder region of Ashok Manik. After firing the bullet, the person ran away. He has further deposed that Ashok Manik was then shifted to Bhagwati Hospital and later on shifted to Lilavati Hospital. He lodged complaint in respect of incident. The complaint lodged by Laxmikant Salian (PW 1) is at Exh-14. PW 1 has further deposed that he was called for identification of suspect in an identification parade organized on 27/2/2008 at Arthur Road jail, wherein he identified the person who entered into the office premises on 21/12/2007 and fired bullet on Ashok Manik. He has deposed in detail as to identification parade and identification of suspect by him. He has identified the accused No. 1/appellant before the court as same person who fired bullet on Ashok Manik (PW 2) and to whom he identified in identification parade held on 28/2/2008. The witness was cross-examined at length. However, nothing has been elicited to discard and disbelieve the testimony of Laxmikant Salian. 8. It is pertinent to note that in the complaint lodged vide Exh.-14 the complainant has given detail description of the assailant. He has specifically mentioned in the complaint that the culprits was in the age group of 25 to 28 years and a height of 5’ x 1” and looking like Nepali. The features of assailant tallies with the description of appell anti accused No.1. 9. The prosecution has examined Ashok Manik (PW 2) the person who sustained bullet injury in the incident dated 21/12/2007. His testimony is at Exh.-16. He has deposed at length in respect of the incident dated 21/12/2007. He has categorically deposed that after finishing lunch he along with Laxmikant Salian (PW 1) were discussing the matter in their office. At about 3-30 p.m. or so he heard sound of opening the door by kick blow. His testimony is at Exh.-16. He has deposed at length in respect of the incident dated 21/12/2007. He has categorically deposed that after finishing lunch he along with Laxmikant Salian (PW 1) were discussing the matter in their office. At about 3-30 p.m. or so he heard sound of opening the door by kick blow. Thereafter one short person of about 5' x 1" in height holding silver colour revolver and whose head was covered with a clothe, red in colour with white dots and wearing blue colour jeans pant and white shirt entered into the office. By pointing gun in his hand towards him shouted and used unparliamertary words "Ravi Poojari ko phone nahi gaya to dekh lenge". Because of incident which was occurred all of sudden both of them were shocked. The person, who entered into the office with silver colour revolver clicked the trigger of the revolver. The bullets tired from the revolver stuck him on the middle left side rib of his body and the blood started oozing from that area. He, therefore, shouted as "Goli lag gaya, Goli lag gaya". At that time the man ran away. He shouted for help. He was taken to Bhagwati Hospital by Laxmikant and Sanjay, the site Supervisor. He was given first aid in Bhagwati hospital and then shifted to Lilavati Hospital. The police recorded his statement on 2nd of January, 2008 after recovery. He was discharged from the hospital on 22/1/2008. He has further deposed that on 27/2/2008, he was called for identification of suspect. In the identification parade, organized at Arthur Road prison, he had identified the person who was standing amongst 12 persons standing in the row. He has further deposed that the person before the court i.e. accused No. 1, was the same person who made assault on him and to whom he identified in identification parade held on 27/2/2008. PW 2 was cross-examined at length. Nothing substantial has been elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve the occular version of incident given by PW 2. 10. The prosecution has examined Vijay Londhe (PW 3) who was then working with Ekta Builder, as another eye-witness to the incident. PW 2 was cross-examined at length. Nothing substantial has been elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve the occular version of incident given by PW 2. 10. The prosecution has examined Vijay Londhe (PW 3) who was then working with Ekta Builder, as another eye-witness to the incident. He has deposed that on 21/12/2007 while he was doing his work, at about 4 p.m. watchman of the premises came to him and informed that two persons are asking about their master (i.e. the owner) and they are outside the office premises. When he came out of the office door, those persons asked him as to where is his Sheth (i.e. the owner) and further said that "Poojari ko phone kiya kya, phone nahi kiya to dekh lenge". They went away. Sometime thereafter he saw one person holding gun in his hand having clothe tied around his head and wearing blue shirt and pant and who was holding gun in his hand, fired at Ashok Manik (PW 2), who received injury over his chest. The person who fired bullet from the gun ran away. He has further deposed that on 27/2/2008 he was called at Arthur Road Jail to identify the suspect. In the identification parade, he identified one person who was standing amongst 12 persons standing in a row as the same person, who fired bullet from the gun towards Ashok Manik (PW 2). He has further identified the accused No. 1 before the court as same person, who fired bullet from the gun on Ashok Manik and to whom he identified in the identification parade held at Arthur Road prison. The witness was cross-examined at length. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination so as to raise any doubt as to truthfulness of testimony of PW 3. 11. The prosecution has examined Waman Sapre (PW 4) Special Executive Officer, who conducted the Identitication Parade on 27/2/2008 in which PW 1 to 3 have identified the appellant/accused No. 1. He has deposed as per the prosecution case, and further proved the contents of panchnama of test identification parade dated 27/2/2008, which is at Exh.-19. He has deposed in detail as to the manner in which he arranged the identification parade, the precautions taken in conduct of identification parade and the identification of appellant/accused No. 1, by PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. The witness was cross-examined at length. He has deposed in detail as to the manner in which he arranged the identification parade, the precautions taken in conduct of identification parade and the identification of appellant/accused No. 1, by PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. The witness was cross-examined at length. Nothing substantial has been brought in the cross-examination. 12. The defence has admitted the panchnama in respect of spot of incident carried out on 21/12/2007, in presence of panch witnesses. In view of the admission of spot panchnama, the panchnama was admitted in evidence and marked as Exh.-20. The contents of the panchnama fully corroborates the testimony of PW 1 to 3, as to incident dated 21/12/2007. The blood was noticed on the flooring of the cabin and outside the cabin of Ashok Manik (PW 2). The prosecution has examined PSI Giridhar Nakul Yadav (PW 31), who recorded the complaint and registered offence against the appellant. 13. Dr. Manohar Ahire (PW 17), who has testified before the court as per Exh.-46. He has deposed that on 21/12/2007, he was working as a Registrar in the department of Surgery, Bhagwati Hospital, Mumbai. While he was present in the hospital at about 4-35 p.m. he has examined a person by name Ashok Manik (PW 2), who was admitted in the hospital with the history of bullet injury, and complaining breathlessness. He has sustained injury over left side of axilla. On his examination he found the air entry decreased on left side of chest and on local examination he has noticed a cut C.L.W to the left axillary region below anterior axillary region of about 2.5 x 1 cm width, 3 cm in depth. There was another C.L.W over upper medial aspect of left arm, which was about 2 cm x 0.5 cm and subcutaneous deep. After assessment of patient the x-ray of chest was obtained, which showed bullet in the left side of thorax. Patient was given symptomatic treatment. At about 7 p.m. the said patient was removed from Bhagwati Hospital to other private hospital. He has produced the medical case papers in respect of admission and discharge of Ashok Manik (PW 2) which are at Exhs.-47 and 48. 14. The prosecution has examined Dr. Shastri (PW 14), whose testimony is at Exh.-35. Patient was given symptomatic treatment. At about 7 p.m. the said patient was removed from Bhagwati Hospital to other private hospital. He has produced the medical case papers in respect of admission and discharge of Ashok Manik (PW 2) which are at Exhs.-47 and 48. 14. The prosecution has examined Dr. Shastri (PW 14), whose testimony is at Exh.-35. He has deposed in detail the admission of Ashok Manik (PW 2) in Lilavati Hospital on 21/12/2007 at around 8-40 p.m. and the surgery performed by him on said person. He has categorically deposed that he had performed surgery on Ashok Manik (PW 2). He found complete feeling of blood in the left chest and nineth and tenth left ribs were fractured. There was entry wound of the bullet on the front left side of the chest. There was no exist wound but there was extensive bruising on the left back. He had suffered a gun shot of bullet which was taken out and the same was handed over to police for chemical analysis. He has issued the injury certificate vide Exh.-36. He has further deposed that the patient was discharged on 22/1/2008. He has produced the entire papers of treatment given to Ashok Manik (PW 2) during 21/12/2007 to 22/1/2008. 15. The prosecution has examined Mohammad Chand (PW 5), the panch witness as to the arrest and recovery of handgun with bullet from the person of appellant/accused No. 1 in the trap laid down on 28/1/2008 at Palace Theatre, Byculla, Mumbai. He has categorically deposed that on 28/1/2008 at about 9-20 p.m. he was called by Detection Crime Branch. cm and taken to Palace Theatre, Byculla, Mumbai. At that time two Nepalis were present amongst 5 to 6 other persons present there. In his presence police has made personal search of person by name Suraj and another person named as R.D. Thapa. In the personal search of Suraj/accused No. 1, one Deshi Katta of silver in colour and bullets of 3 inch in length with black colour at the point and yellow at the bottom with some writing over it were seized from Suraj i.e. accused No. 1. From other person, whose name is disclosed as R.D. Thapa, police had recovered one knife. He has identified the accused No. 1 and 2 as same person who were apprehended in the trap laid down on 28/1/2008. He was cross-examined at length. From other person, whose name is disclosed as R.D. Thapa, police had recovered one knife. He has identified the accused No. 1 and 2 as same person who were apprehended in the trap laid down on 28/1/2008. He was cross-examined at length. No material has been brought on record in his cross-examination to disbelieve the testimony of PW 5. 16. The prosecution has examined Asam Abdul Hai Farooqui (PW 6), the police constable, who was the member of the police party of trap laid down on 28/1/2008 to catch R.D. Thapa along with one other person on the basis of relevant information received from the informant. He has testified before the court as per Exh.-24. He has deposed in detail about the trap laid down and two persons who were caught which includes the appellant-accused No. 1 and accused No. 2. R.D. Thapa. He has further deposed about the recovery of one Katta with two bullets from the personal search of accused No. 1 and one knife one mobile of Tata Company from accused No. 2 No evidence is brought in the cross-examination of this witness so as to discard and disbelieve his testimony. 17. The prosecution has examined API - DCB CID Ajay Khashaba Sawant (PW 30) who laid the trap and apprehended the appellant/accused No. 1. He has deposed in detail about the trap laid down the arrest of appellant/accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 as well as the recovery of weapon and the registration of offence against them under the Arms Act. He has categorically deposed that during the interrogation of both the accused i.e. accused Nos. 1 and 2, it was revealed that the firearm which was recovered was used in commission of offence which was occurred on 21/12/2007 in the premises of Ekta Builder at Kandivali, in respect of which the offence was registered vide C.R. No. 379 of2007 with police station Kandivali. He has deposed that on 7/2/2008 the investigation was transferred to Unit No. 11 and the investigation of crime No. 379/2007 was taken over by the crime branch and C.R. No. 379/2007 was converted into C.R. No. 20 of 2008. He has identified the accused before the court as same person whom he had arrested in the trap laid down on 28/1/2008. The witness was cross-examined at length. He has identified the accused before the court as same person whom he had arrested in the trap laid down on 28/1/2008. The witness was cross-examined at length. However, nothing has been extracted so as to discard the testimony of PW 30. 18. Thus, if we consider the testimony of the witnesses, as discussed in the foregoing paras, then it can be safely stated that the prosecution has established the complicity of appellant/accused No.1 in incident dated 21/12/2007 and in commission of offence u/s 326, 452 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3 r/w Sec. 25, 27 of the Arms Act. Through the testimonies of PW 1 to PW 3, the prosecution has proved that appellant/accused No. 1 committed the act of house trespass in the premises of Ekta Builder, Kandivali on 21/12/2007 at about 4 p.m. after due preparation to cause hurt to the person or create fear of hurt to owner and persons present in the premises. The prosecution has also proved that at the time of making house trespass the appellant was possessing firearm. Thus the commission of offence u/s 452 of the IPC has been duly proved against the appellant. 19. If we consider the testimony of Ashok Manik (PW 2) and Dr. Shashtri (PW 14) and Dr. Ahire (PW 15) then through the testimony of these witnesses, the prosecution has proved commission of offence u/s 326 of IPC against the appellant/accused No. 1. The testimony of PW 2 has been duly corroborated through the testimony of PW 1 and PW 3. The appellant was identified in the test identification parade arranged on 27/2/2008 at Arthur Road jail by all the three eye-witnesses. In the complaint lodged, the complainant Laxmikant Salian (PW 1) has given the features of the assailant. He has specifically stated that the person was looking like Nepali. The appellant/accused No. 1 was arrested on 28/1/2008 with the firearm and bullet which he was possessing at the time of his arrest in a trap laid down near Palace Theater at Byculla, Mumbai. The prosecution has examined Vasudeo Patil (PW 19) Assistant Chemical Analyser attached to Forensic Laboratory. He has categorically deposed that on 21/1/2008 one sealed plastic container was received from police station Kandivali, containing one soft nose cuprojacketed bullet having brushing mark with label No. LH 200022446. The prosecution has examined Vasudeo Patil (PW 19) Assistant Chemical Analyser attached to Forensic Laboratory. He has categorically deposed that on 21/1/2008 one sealed plastic container was received from police station Kandivali, containing one soft nose cuprojacketed bullet having brushing mark with label No. LH 200022446. He has deposed that the said bullet was 8 mm rifle bullet having superficial lengthwise brushing marks showing that Exhibit 1 has been fired from the weapon having smooth bore barrel. He has further deposed that he received one single barrel breech loading country made handgun having one intact KF8MM rifle cartridge. On its examination he found the barrel of the said gun was in working condition and capable of chambering and firing 8mm rifle cartridge. Residue of fired ammunition nitrite were detected in the barrel washing of the handgun, suggestive of fact that it was used for firing prior to its receipt in the laboratory. Two 8mm rifle cartridges one each from Exhibit 2A and 2B were successfully test fired through the country made handgun in Exhibit 1 and confirmed the fact that the characteristic, lengthwise superficial brushing marks examined under comparison microscope on tired 8 mm soft nose cuprojacketed bullet in Exhibit 1 received from police station Kandivali in C.R. No. 379 of 2007 tally with bullet resulted from test firing of 8 mmm rifle cartridge through the country made handgun in Exhibit 1. He has proved the contents of report of analysis at Exh.-53. He has confirmed the report at Exh.-53 and the letters Exhibit 54A and 54B received for examination of the weapon and the bullet. 20. Thus the testimony of PW 2 coupled with report of chemical analyzer at Exh.-53 has established the complicity of appellant/accused No. 1 in connection with the offence registered vide C.R. No. 379 of 2007. The identification of appellant/accused No. 1 by all the three eye-witnesses has established the complicity of appellant/accused No. 1 in commission of offence u/s 326, 452 and 506(ii) of IPC and Sec. 3 r/w Sec. 25 & 27 of Arms Act. 21. Mr. Najmi, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was inordinate and unexplained delay in holding test identification parade. He has submitted that the incident was occurred on 21/12/2007. As per the prosecution case the appellant was arrested on 28/1/2008. 21. Mr. Najmi, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was inordinate and unexplained delay in holding test identification parade. He has submitted that the incident was occurred on 21/12/2007. As per the prosecution case the appellant was arrested on 28/1/2008. During the interrogation of the appellant and the co-accused it was revealed that they were involved in incident dated 21/12/2007. The custody of the appellant was got transferred in C.R. No. 379 of 2007 in the first week of February, 2008, still the identification parade was arranged on 27/2/2008. He has therefore, submitted that the possibility of appellant being shown to the eye-witnesses during the intervening period cannot be ruled out. He has submitted that the alleged identification parade was farce. By referring the testimony of PW 1 to 4 the learned counsel has argued that the person having features similar to appellant/accused No. 1 were not placed as dummies in the identification parade. He has relied upon the ruling reported in 2000 CRI. L.J. Page 3080, Tulsi & Ors. v. State of U.P. 22. In our view, the submissions made are without any force. We have already discussed in the foregoing paras the testimony of the three eye witnesses i.e. PW 1 to PW 3 and the testimony of Special Executive Magistrate/Officer Shri Waman Sapre (PW 4). In the cross-examination of this witness nothing has been brought on record so as to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the test identification parade was farce and it was not conducted as per the procedure prescribed by law. Nothing has been brought on record so as to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the test identification parade as tainted and reliance cannot be placed on identification of appellant/accused in which the eye-witnesses have identified the appellant/accused as a culprit. In fact identification parades are not primarily meant for the court. They are meant for investigation purposes. The object of conducting test identification parade is two fold. First object is to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the prisoners whom they suspect is really the person one who was seen by them in connection with the commission of crime. The second object is to satisfy the investigating agencies that the suspect is real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said incident. First object is to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the prisoners whom they suspect is really the person one who was seen by them in connection with the commission of crime. The second object is to satisfy the investigating agencies that the suspect is real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said incident. The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Suresh JT 1999 (9) SC 513 : 12000 ALL MR (Cri) 554 (S.C.)], has observed in para 22 of the judgment as under: "If potholes were to be ferreted out from the proceedings of the magistrates holding such parades possibly no Test Identification Parade can escape from one or two lapses. If a scrutiny is made from that angle alone and the result of the parade is treated as vitiated every Test Identification Parade would become unusable. We remind ourselves that identification parades are not primarily meant for the court. They are meant for investigation purposes. The object of conducting test identification parade is two fold. First is to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the prisoner whom they suspect is really the one who was seen by them in connection with the commission of the crime. Second is to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrences. So the officer conducted in the test identification parade should ensure that the said object of the parade is achieved. If he permits dilution of the modality to be followed in a parade, he should see to it that such relaxation would not impair the purpose for which the parade is held, (vide Budhsen v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1970) 2 SCC 128 ; Ramnathan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1978) 3 SCC 86 ). 23. We have already discussed in the foregoing para that the incident was occurred in a day time. The suspect to whom the witnesses have identified had fired bullet from the handgun/revolver which he was carrying in his hand and caused injury to Ashok Manik (PW 2). Before firing the bullet he has uttered the words "Madharchod, kal tak Ravi Poojariko phone aana chahiye, nahi to dekh lenge". After firing the bullet the accused ran away. The suspect to whom the witnesses have identified had fired bullet from the handgun/revolver which he was carrying in his hand and caused injury to Ashok Manik (PW 2). Before firing the bullet he has uttered the words "Madharchod, kal tak Ravi Poojariko phone aana chahiye, nahi to dekh lenge". After firing the bullet the accused ran away. It is pertinent to note that in the FIR lodged immediately after the incident, the complainant has given the description of culprit. He has given the features as of height, complexion of the culprit. He has specifically given the feature of culprit that he was looking like Nepali. In the cross-examination it has come on record that the suspects were mixed with 3 - 4 persons, who were looking like Nepalis. The appellant/accused who was identified by the eye-witnesses was allowed to mix up amongst the dummies. In all twelve persons were made to stand in a row. All the three eye-witnesses have identified the appellant/accused as 'culprit' involved in the incident dated 21/12/2007. It is pertinent to note that accused No. 2 in the case was also put up for identification as one of the suspect for identification in the test identification parade. However, the eye-witness have not identified him. It is also pertinent to note that handgun/revolver which was used in commission of offence was recovered from appellant/accused. The handgun/revolver seized from the accused was sent to chemical analyzer. The bullet which was recovered from the body of injured witness Ashok Manik (PW 2) was also sent to chemical analyzer. As per the report of chemical analyzer, the handgun/revolver seized from the appellant/accused was found to be used prior to its examination and it was also confirmed that the bullet which was recovered from the body of injured witness was capable of firing from the said handgun/revolver. In the cross-examination of the witnesses, nothing has been elicited so as to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the test identification parade was a farce and cannot be relied. 24. We have considered the ruling as relied by the learned counsel in Tulsi & Ors. v. State of U.P. (supra). In our view the ruling cited have no bearing upon the facts of the present case. In the case cited the suspects who were put in identification parade had distinctive body marks. 24. We have considered the ruling as relied by the learned counsel in Tulsi & Ors. v. State of U.P. (supra). In our view the ruling cited have no bearing upon the facts of the present case. In the case cited the suspects who were put in identification parade had distinctive body marks. Two of the suspects had amputated legs. The another suspect put for identification had small pox mark on his fact. On analysis of the evidence it was found that no proper precautions were taken while taking the test identification parade. On the basis of overall evidence before the court, the court has doubted the genuineness of identification parade. Whereas in the case in hand, there is no evidence brought on record to raise any doubt as to the genuineness of the identification parade conducted for identification of appellant/accused. 25. So far as the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was delay in conduct of the test identification parade, we are of the view that there is nothing to suggest from evidence on record that any deliberate delay has been caused in organizing the test identification parade and the same has resulted in causing prejudice or miscarriage of justice to appellant/accused. The incident was occurred on 21/12/2007. The appellant/accused who was arrested on 28/1/2008 in another crime, while interrogating the appellant/accused in that crime, it was revealed that he was involved in commission of offence relating to C.R. No. 379/2007 registered with police station Kandivali. It has come on record that the custody of the appellant/accused was obtained in investigation of C.R. No. 379/2007 on 14/2/2008. Thereafter the investigation of the case was conducted. After seeking the permission from the Magistrate, the test identification parade was organized on 27/2/2008. There is no evidence brought on record to suggest that during the intervening period the appellant/accused was exposed to public or the eye-witnesses had an opportunity to see the appellant/accused. There is no cross-examination made to the investigating officer on this aspect. The investigating officer was not asked to offer explanation as to why the identification parade was not arranged immediately after the arrest of appellant/accused. There is no cross-examination made to the investigating officer on this aspect. The investigating officer was not asked to offer explanation as to why the identification parade was not arranged immediately after the arrest of appellant/accused. In absence of any evidence to show that accused being shown to the eye-witness or they had an opportunity to see the appellant/accused prior to test identification parade, we are not inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel that delay in conduct of identification parade is fatal to the case of prosecution. 26. Mr. Najmi, the learned counsel for the appellant by referring overall case of the prosecution and evidence on record, contended that no offence u/s 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of MCOC Act 1999 has been made out against the appellant. It is contended that the activity as alleged against the appellant/accused cannot be termed as unlawful activity which is made punishable under the said provisions of MCOC Act. By placing emphasis on the words "unlawful activity", the learned counsel has contended that the activity as referred u/s 2(d) of MCOC Act should have nexus with the commission of crime which MCOC Act seeks to prevent or control. Only the acts prohibited under said enactment are covered under the ambit of said Act to attract the penal sections. 27. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has contended that the acts as alleged and established by the prosecution squarely falls within the meaning of "unlawful activity" referred to in Section 2(d) of the said Act. By referring the object of MCOC Act, the learned APP has submitted that the acts alleged and proved against the appellant/accused certainly make out a case of commission of offence u/s 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act. 28. We have thoroughly considered the submissions advanced in the light of relevant provisions. The appellant/accused No. 1 found guilty of committing offence u/s 3(1)(ii) and Section 3(4) of MCOC Act, 1999. For the better appreciation of the submissions advanced, the relevant provision is reproduced as under: "3. 28. We have thoroughly considered the submissions advanced in the light of relevant provisions. The appellant/accused No. 1 found guilty of committing offence u/s 3(1)(ii) and Section 3(4) of MCOC Act, 1999. For the better appreciation of the submissions advanced, the relevant provision is reproduced as under: "3. Punishment for organized crime:- (1) Whoever commits an offence of organized crime shall.- i) if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees one lac; ii) in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs. (2) ......... (3) ......... (4) Any person who is a member of an organised crime syndicate shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extent to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs. It is further useful to refer Section 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e) and 2(1)(f) which read as under: "2(1)(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 filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence; 2(1)(e) "organised crime" means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or treat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency; 2(1)(f) "organised crime syndicate" means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly of collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime; 29. It is pertinent to note that MCOC Act was enacted in the year 1999, with the object to tackle new trends of offences being committed causing serious threat to society. The said Act was enacted to tackle the organized crimes committed by organized criminal gangs operating in the State as well as outside the State and even beyond the geographical and territorial limits of the country indulging into an act of contract killing, extortion, smuggling of contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnapping for ransom, collection of protection money, money laundering and such other offences causing serious effect on the society as well as the economy of the country. Since the existing legal framework i.e. the penal and procedural law and the systems found to be inadequate to curb and control the menace of the organized crime, the said Act has been enacted providing for stringent and deterrent provisions to control the menace of organized crime. 30. The plain reading of the word "continuing in lawful activity" as defined u/s 2(1)(d) of said Act covers the activities prohibited by law, which are cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years undertaken either singly or jointly as a member of organized 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 preceding period often years and court has taken cognizance of such offence and the cognizable offence punishable under the law in force. 31. We have already discussed in the foregoing para the prosecution case as well as the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The appellant/accused has been charged with imputation that the incident dated 21/12/2007 in which the involvement of appellant/accused has been established, was a part of conspiracy hatched by gangster Ravi Poojari along with wanted accused persons. The prosecution has examined Laxmikant Salian (PW 1), Ashok Manik (PW 2), Vijay Londhe (PW 3), all of them have stated that the accused has referred to name of gangster Ravi Poojari and asked the owner of Ekta Builders to call Ravi Poojari. The prosecution has examined Anupkumar Mehta (PW 7) Sales Manager of Ekta Supreme Housing office at Powai, who has deposed that on 21/12/2007, after the incident of firing at about 5 to 5.15 p.m. a phone was received on land line. The prosecution has examined Anupkumar Mehta (PW 7) Sales Manager of Ekta Supreme Housing office at Powai, who has deposed that on 21/12/2007, after the incident of firing at about 5 to 5.15 p.m. a phone was received on land line. The caller told the Receptionist that he is Ravi Poojari and asked her to give phone to her master. The Receptionist transferred the phone call to her master. The caller spoke in a hard voice saying that he is Ravi Poojari. He asked as to whether they have site at Kandivali. When he answered in affirmative, the caller told him that he has made to make firing at the office at Kandivali. He has further referred the name of Mohanani (PW 8), owner/partner of Ekta Developer and asked him to close the office at Powai otherwise he will repeat the incident made by him at Kandivali site of his office and also asked his master who is the owner of the said firm to call him on phone No. 003774760763. He has lodged the complaint in respect of said phone call received with police station Powai on 22/12/2007. On the basis of the complaint the FIR was registered as 664/2007. He has deposed that in the month of January/February, he has received similar phone calls from Ravi Poojari. The caller told him that his Boss is not calling him and there is every likelihood that his employees would come in trouble. 32. On the same line, the prosecution witness Ashok Mohanani (PW 8), the owner/partner of Ekta Supreme Housing, has deposed about the phone calls which he has received during the period 6/12/2005 to 14/1/2008. He has given the details of the various phone calls received from the caller, who gave his name as Ravi Poojari and demand of money made to him. The another prosecution witness Ramesh Bijlani (PW 22), and Vivek Mohanani (PW 23) the partners of Ekta Supreme Housing have deposed about the threatening calls received by them from gangster Ravi Poojari and person claiming on his behalf demanding money from them. The reports of call details produced on record at Exhibits 59, 61, 72 have corroborated the testimony of all these four witnesses. The reports of call details produced on record at Exhibits 59, 61, 72 have corroborated the testimony of all these four witnesses. Thus according to us the evidence on record is sufficient to establish as to connect the appellant/accused with the member of organized crime syndicate of gangster Ravi Poojari against whom MCOC Special Case Nos. 17/05 and 10/07 are pending before special court. The sanction order dated 13/2/2008 at Exh.-84 refers to the continuing unlawful activity of organized crime syndicate headed by Ravi Poojari. The evidence on record is more than sufficient to prove that appellant/accused was active member of the organized crime syndicate run by gangster Ravi Poojari. The copies of charge-sheet in the said two cases are produced at Exhs.-86 and 87, in which Ravi Poojari is shown to be one of the accused. Both the cases relates to commission of organized crime by crime syndicate of Ravi Poojari. The offences which are charged are punishable with a punishment of more than three years. We have already discussed the object behind enacting the MCOC Act, 1999. We are therefore, not inclined to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that the acts and activities of the appellant not attract the provisions of Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of MCOC Act. According to us the acts and activities of the appellant squarely falls within the purport of "unlawful activity" as contemplated u/s 2(d) of MCOC Act, to attract offence u/s 3(1)(ii) and Section 3(4) of MCOC Act. 33. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing para, we have no hesitation to hold that that prosecution has not only established the complicity of appellant in commission of offence for which he has been charged, the prosecution has proved the guilt of appellant/accused in commission of offence u/s 326, 452, 506(ii) of IPC, Section 3, 25, 27 of the Arms Act as well as Section 4 of MCOC Act, 1999. 34. We are of the view that the reasons and findings recorded by the learned Special Judge to hold the appellant/accused guilty of such offences, are fully consistent with the evidence on record. We have not found any perversity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge. We are, therefore, not inclined to allow the appeal. 35. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.