KAVITHA LANKESH vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.      OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO._________ OF 2021) (@ DIARY NO.13309 OF 2021) KAVITHA LANKESH        …APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.        …RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.        OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO. 5387/2021) J U D G M E N T A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. These appeals emanate from the judgment and order dated 22.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No.9717 of 2019 (GM­RES), whereby the High Court Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2021.10.21 11:55:11 IST Reason: partly  allowed   the   writ  petition  and   quashed   the   order   bearing 2 No.CRM(1)/KCOCA/01/2018   dated   14.08.2018   issued   by   the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City according prior approval to invoke   offences   under   Section   3   of   the   Karnataka   Control   of 1 Organised   Crimes   Act,   2000   against   Mohan   Nayak.N   (private 2 respondent   herein)   being   crime   registered   with   Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station as FIR No.221/2017 dated 05.09.2017 and to enquire into the same. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, be it noted that the present appeals pertain to the incident which had occurred on 05.09.2017 in which one Gauri Lankesh, who was a leading journalist, was shot   dead   by   certain   unknown   assailants   near   her   house   at Rajarajeshwari   Nagar,   Bengaluru.     Her   sister­Kavitha   Lankesh (appellant herein) rushed to the spot and after seeing her sister in a precarious condition, immediately lodged a complaint with the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, which came to be registered for offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 3 25   of   the   Arms   Act,   1959   being   FIR   No.221/2017   dated 1  for short, ‘the 2000 Act’ 2   Writ   Petitioner   before   the   High   Court;   not   named   in   FIR   No.221/2017   and preliminary   chargesheet;  shown   as   accused   No.8   in   the   prior   approval   and   as accused No.11 in the additional chargesheet. 3  for short, ‘the Arms Act’ 3 05.09.2017.     The   investigation   of   the   crime   was   thereafter 4 entrusted to the Special Investigating Team  on 06.09.2017.   3. In the course of investigation, a preliminary chargesheet came to be filed against the concerned accused on 29.05.2018.   The crime was then committed to the City Civil and Sessions Judge as CC   No.14578   of   2018.     The   Investigating   Officer   had   sought permission   of   the   Magistrate   to   file   an   additional   chargesheet under   Section   173(8)   of   the   Criminal   Procedure   Code   as   the investigation was still underway.   The private respondent­Mohan Nayak.N came to be arrested on 18.07.2018 in connection with the stated crime.  The further investigation revealed that the accused persons in Special CC No.872 of 2018 were involved in organized crime as a syndicate which attracted the provisions of Section 3 of the   2000   Act.     The   SIT   submitted   that   report   to   the   Chief Investigating   Officer,   who   then   sought   approval   of   the Commissioner   of   Police,   Bengaluru   City   vide   proposal   dated 07.08.2018,   to   invoke   Section   3   of   the   2000   Act   concerning organized crime. 4  for short, ‘the SIT' 4 4. After due consideration of the stated report and the entire investigation papers and record of evidence collected by the SIT, the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City in exercise of powers under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2000 Act accorded   prior approval for invoking Section 3 of the 2000 Act in respect of crime being FIR No.221/2017, vide communication dated 14.08.2018. 5. After completion of the investigation, the Additional Director General   of   Police   and   Commissioner   of   Police,   Bengaluru   City accorded sanction under Section 24(2) of the 2000 Act.  The final police report then came to be filed on 23.11.2018 before the Special Court at Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 114, 118, 109, 201, 203, 204 and 35 of the IPC.  Further charges were also invoked under Sections 25(1), 25(1B) and 27(1) of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the 2000 Act.   The additional chargesheet came to be filed against named accused Nos.1 to 18 before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge Court (CCH­1) in Special C.C.No.872  of  2018  under  the stated provisions, in which private respondent­Mohan Nayak.N was 5 named   as   accused.     The   Court   then   took   cognizance   on 17.12.2018. 6. It is only after the cognizance was taken by the competent Court, the private respondent­Mohan Nayak.N was advised to file Writ   Petition   No.9717   of   2019   before   the   High   Court   on 25.02.2019, for the following reliefs: “PRAYER WHEREFORE,   the   Petitioner   above   named   most respectfully   prays   that   this   Hon’ble   Court   may   be pleased to; (a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ   or   order   or   direction,   quashing   the   order dated:   14.08.2018   passed   by   the   third Respondent   herein   in   No.CRM(1) KCOCA/01/2018   thereby   passing   an   order   of approval under section 24(1)(a) of the Karnataka Control   of   Organised   Crimes   Act,   2000   (herein after referred to as KCOCA Act for short) to invoke the   section   3   of   the   said   Act   in   Crime No.221/2017 registered by the fifth Respondent herein for the offences punishable under section 302, 120B, 118, 114 read with section 35 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act and also the additional charge sheet   filed   by   the   fourth   Respondent   herein against the Petitioner in so far as section 3(i), 3(ii), 3(iii)   and   3(iv)   of   the   KCOCA   Act,   which   are produced as ANNEXURES­A & B respectively; and (b) Grant such other and further reliefs as deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” 6 7. The High Court vide impugned judgment noted that it was called   upon   to   examine   whether   the   impugned   order   dated 14.08.2018 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City in   exercise   of   power   under   Section   24(1)(a)   of   the   2000   Act according prior approval to invoke Section 3 of the 2000 Act for investigation against concerned accused including writ petitioner­ Mohan Nayak.N is legal and valid.  In the context of that relief, the High Court noted the submissions made by the counsel for the writ petitioner in the following words: “7.   Sri Gautham S. Bharadwaj, learned Counsel for the   petitioner   challenges   the   order   Annexure­A granting permission under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act against the petition on the following grounds: (i) The   petitioner   was   not   involved   in   continuing unlawful activity as contemplated in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act; (ii) The   charge   sheet   allegations   do   not   attract organized crime as contemplated under Section 2(e) of the Act; & (iii) By such unlawful invocation of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, personal liberty of the petitioner is violated, thereby the order Annexure­A is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.” The High Court also adverted to the three decisions pressed 8. into service by the writ petitioner­Mohan Nayak.N, namely,  State 7 5 of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal & Anr. , 6 State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Brijesh Singh @ Arun Kumar & Anr. 7 and  Muniraju R. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. . 9. The High Court then proceeded to note the objections taken by the prosecution in the following words: “9. Sri H.S. Chandramouli, learned Special Public Prosecutor   opposes   the   petition   on   the   following grounds: (i) There is no dispute that accused Nos.7 and 10 were   involved   in   two   criminal   cases   each,   accused Nos.9, 1 to 4 were involved in one criminal case each. The   said   offences   were   cognizable   offences   and   the cognizance was taken in those cases; (ii) If one of the members of the organized crime syndicate is involved in more than one case and the charge   sheet   was   filed,   Section   2(d)   of   the   Act   is attracted.     Therefore   even   if   the   petitioner   was   not involved in other cases, respondent No.3 has rightly invoked Section 2(d) of the Act; (iii) Annexure­A   shows   that   the   approval   was granted for investigation on due application of mind; (iv) After the charge sheet was filed, the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences and the petitioner has not sought quashing of the charge sheet or the order   taking   cognizance,   therefore   challenge   to Annexure­A is not maintainable; 5  (2007) 4 SCC 171 6  (2017) 10 SCC 779 7   Criminal Petition No.391 of 2019 decided on 05.02.2019 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru 8 (v) The petitioner filed Crl.P.No.8325/2018 seeking bail.  In that petition, he raised the same contentions. This Court while passing the order rejected the said contention   and   that   order   has   attained   finality. Therefore it is not open to the petitioner to challenge Annexure­A on the same grounds; (vi) The   petitioner   did   not   file   any   application  for discharge   on   the   same   grounds,   under   such circumstances, Annexure­A is vexatious; & (vii) The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable.” The High Court then adverted to the decisions relied upon by the prosecution,   namely,   Vinod   G.   Asrani   vs.   State   of 8 ,   Maharashtra John D’Souza vs. Assistant Commissioner of 9 Police ,  Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs. State of Maharashtra & 10 11 ,   , Anr. Govind   Sakharam   Ubhe   vs.   State   of   Maharashtra 12 Digvijay Saroha vs. State   and   K.T. Naveen Kumar @ Naveen 13 vs. State of Karnataka . 8  (2007) 3 SCC 633  9  Manu/MH/0797/2007 10  (2015) 7 SCC 440 11  2009 SCC OnLine Bom 770 12  2019 SCC OnLine Del 10324 13   Crl. P.No.5507/2019 decided on 10.01.2020 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru 9 10. After   having   noted   the   rival   submissions,   the   High   Court posed a question to itself whether Section 3 of the 2000 Act applies to the writ petitioner­Mohan Nayak.N? The High Court noted the role of the writ petitioner­Mohan 11. Nayak.N, as imputed by the prosecution, that he had acted on 14 instructions of co­accused Amol Kale  to take a house on rent in Tagachukuppe,   Kumbalgodu   in   the   guise   of   running   an acupressure clinic, which was in fact meant to accommodate the members of the syndicate and even after commission of murder of Gauri Lankesh, he harboured the actual assailants therein.   The High Court then noted the fact that accused Nos.3, 5, 7 to 9, 11, 13 to 16 were not chargesheeted in any single case for cognizable offences, nor cognizance of such offences had been taken by a competent court against them as required under Section 2(1)(d) of the 2000 Act.  The High Court then noticing the exposition in  Lalit 15 16 17 Somdatta Nagpal ,   Brijesh Singh   and   Muniraju R. ,   opined 14 Not named in FIR No.221/2017 and in the preliminary chargesheet; shown as accused   No.3   in   the   prior   approval   and   as   accused   No.1   in   the   additional chargesheet. 15  supra at Footnote No.5 16  supra at Footnote No.6 17  supra at Footnote No.7 10 that in absence of at least two chargesheets filed against the writ petitioner­Mohan Nayak.N in respect of specified offences and of which   cognizance   had   been   taken   by   the   competent   Court   as required   to   attract   the   offence   of   organized   crime,   he   was   not engaged in continuing unlawful activity.  On this finding, the High Court concluded that the writ petitioner­Mohan Nayak.N cannot be proceeded further and thus, partly allowed the writ petition by not only quashing the order dated 14.08.2018 of the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City according approval for invoking Section 3 of the   2000   Act,   but   also   the   chargesheet   filed   against   the   writ petitioner­Mohan Nayak.N for offences punishable under Section 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the 2000 Act.  As regards the decisions relied upon by the prosecution, the High Court noted that the same were of no avail to the prosecution. 12. Being aggrieved, the complainant­Kavitha Lankesh as well as the   State   of   Karnataka   have   filed   separate   appeals   before   this Court questioning the correctness of the view taken by the High Court.   The arguments as canvassed before the High Court have 11 been reiterated by both sides including reliance has been placed on the reported decisions referred hitherto. 13. We have heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing   for   the   appellant­Kavitha   Lankesh,   Mr.   V.N. Raghupathy, learned Counsel for the State of Karnataka and Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondent. 14. To recapitulate the relevant factual background, be it noted that FIR under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code was registered with Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station being Crime No.221/2017   dated   05.09.2017   initially   for   offences   punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at the instance   of   the   appellant­Kavitha   Lankesh   against   unknown persons.   Considering the nature of offence, the Government of Karnataka constituted a SIT vide order dated 06.09.2017 headed by Mr. B.K. Singh, IPS, IGP, Intelligence, Bengaluru.   Mr. M.N. Anucheth,   IPS,   DCP   (West)   was   nominated   as   the   Chief Investigating   Officer   of   the   SIT.     The   SIT   after   taking   over   the 12 investigation submitted preliminary chargesheet dated 29.05.2018 18 against   accused   K.T.   Naveen   Kumar   @   Naveen   before   the concerned Court for offences punishable under Sections 302, 114, 118, 120B and 35 of the IPC read with Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act.    The  preliminary  chargesheet  was  accompanied  with documents and list of witnesses.  On the basis of material collected during   further   investigation,   report   dated   07.08.2018   was submitted   by   the   Chief   Investigating   Officer   of   the   SIT   to   the Commissioner   of   Police,   Bengaluru   City   for   according   prior approval for invoking provisions of the 2000 Act in respect of crime already registered.   The Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City after going through the stated report, entire investigation papers and record of evidence collected until then, was satisfied that the 19 20 accused   Parshuram   Wagmore ,   Amith   Baddi ,   and   Ganesh 18 Not   named   in   FIR   No.221/2017;   shown   as   accused   No.1   in   the   preliminary chargesheet   and   in   prior   approval   and   as   accused   No.17   in   the   additional chargesheet. 19 Not named in FIR No.221/2017 and in the preliminary chargesheet; shown as accused   No.7   in   the   prior   approval   and   as   accused   No.2   in   the   additional chargesheet. 20 Not named in FIR No.221/2017 and in the preliminary chargesheet; shown as accused   No.10   in   the   prior   approval   and   as   accused   No.4   in   the   additional chargesheet. 13 21 Miskin  were involved in more than two specified offences in the past  through   their   illegal   actions   of   sedition,   promoting   enmity between   two   groups   of   people,   inciting   communal   violence, assaulting and injuring public servants, damaging public property and causing grave disturbance to public order.  The Commissioner of Police also recorded his satisfaction that K.T. Naveen Kumar @ 22 23 Naveen,   Sujith   Kumar ,   Amol   Kale   and   Amit   Degvekar ,   have jointly committed an offence having punishment of three years or more   within   the   preceding   period   of   ten   years   and   the chargesheet(s) had been filed against them before the competent Court and cognizance thereof has been taken.  He then formed an opinion that these accused had jointly conspired to assassinate one   Prof.   K.S.   Bhagawan   for   expressing   his   views   which   were inimical to that of their ideology.  They intended to instil fear in the hearts and minds of those whose views were antithesis to their own 21 Not named in FIR No.221/2017 and in the preliminary chargesheet; shown as accused   No.9   in   the   prior   approval   and   as   accused   No.3   in   the   additional chargesheet. 22 Not named in FIR No.221/2017 and in the preliminary chargesheet; shown as accused   No.2   in   the   prior   approval   and   as   accused   No.13   in   the   additional chargesheet. 23 Not named in FIR No.221/2017 and in the preliminary chargesheet; shown as accused   No.4   in   the   prior   approval   and   as   accused   No.5   in   the   additional chargesheet. 14 views   and   stifle   the   fundamental   right   of   free   speech   and expression.   The Commissioner of Police was also convinced that the arrested accused Nos.1 to 12 and the absconding accused No.5 were active members of an organized crime syndicate and have committed the present offence in furtherance of their organized crime activity in order to promote insurgency.   The Commissioner of   Police   adverted   to   the   findings   in   the   investigation   record 24 revealing that one Rajesh D. Bangera   gave training in arms to various members of the syndicate since 2012 at various places in and around Karnataka and Maharashtra.  After having taken note of these facts, the Commissioner of Police recorded his satisfaction in the following words: “Investigation findings have clearly revealed that these members   of   the   organized   crime   syndicate   were   in constant   touch   with   one   another   and   actively underwent   arms   training,   arms   shooting   practice, crude bomb making and indoctrination.   They  met, conspired and trained at various places in and around Karnataka   and   Maharashtra   with   the   intention   of promoting insurgency.   Documents seized during the investigation clearly reveal the intention of the accused to assassinate 8 writers/thinkers of Karnataka and 26 other writers/thinkers from the rest of the country. 24 Not named in FIR No.221/2017 and in the preliminary chargesheet; shown as accused   No.11   in   the   prior   approval   and   as   accused   No.8   in   the   additional chargesheet. 15 Documents seized in the course of investigation conducted reveal the plans of how the organized crime syndicate   intended   to   cause   grave   disturbance   to public   order   during   the   release   of   a   movie   titled ‘Padmaavat’ by attacking films theatres where the said movie would have been exhibited by the use of deadly substances   like   petrol   bombs,   acid   etc.   and   cause bodily harm to the viewers and economically hurt the film distributors.  These documents further reveal the intention of the syndicate to procure and use RDX, petrol bombs, acids, poisons and other incendiary and chemical materials. Investigation findings have prima facie revealed that these members of the organized crime syndicate conspired and murdered Ms. Gauri Lankesh to further their cause and to promote insurgency. Thus, on perusal and evaluation of the entire material   brought   on   record   and   also   taking   into consideration   the   factual  circumstances   of   the   case including the proximity and time gap in committing the crimes and having applied my mind, I am satisfied and convinced that the arrested and wanted accused have committed the offence as defined in section 2(1) of   the   Karnataka   Control   of   Organized   Crimes   Act, 2000. NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by Section 24(1)(a) of the said Act, I, T. Suneel Kumar, IPS, Additional Director General of Police   and   Commissioner   of   Police,   Bengaluru   City hereby   grant/accord   my   prior   approval   to   invoke Section   3   of   The   Karnataka   Control   of   Organized Crimes   Act   2000,   to   Sri   M.N.   Anucheth,   IPS,   DCP (Administration),   Bengaluru   City   and   Chief Investigating Officer (Special Investigation Team) in the Bengaluru   City   Rajarajeshwari   Nagar   Police   Station Crime No. 221/217 u/s 302, 120(B), 118, 114 r/w 35 of Indian Penal Code and 3, 25 of Indian Arms Act. Sri M.N. Anucheth, Chief Investigating Officer, shall   scrupulously   follow   and   comply   with   the 16 provisions   of   The   Karnataka   Control   of   Organized Crimes Act, 2000. This order given under my signature and seal th today i.e. 14  August, 2018.” It   is   plain   that   tangible   material   was   placed   before   the 15. Commissioner regarding information about the commission of an organized   crime   by   the   members   of   organized   crime   syndicate, which warranted grant of prior approval to invoke Section 3 of the 2000 Act.  This prior approval was assailed before the High Court by way of writ petition filed much after the appropriate authority had already accorded sanction and the competent court had taken cognizance of that crime on 17.12.2018.  The   High   Court   opened   the   judgment   by   noting   that   the 16. challenge is to the order dated 14.08.2018 of the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City granting approval to invoke Section 3 of the 2000 Act.  In the latter part of the judgment, however, it posed a wrong question to itself which was obviously not relevant at this stage — as to whether Section 3 of the 2000 Act applies to the writ petitioner­Mohan Nayak.N?  Notably, the High Court was not called upon   nor   has   it   analysed   the   entire   material   collected   by   the 17 Investigating Agency, which had been made part of the chargesheet filed   before   the   competent   Court   and   in   respect   of   which cognizance is also taken. 17. For the time being for deciding the matter in issue, there is no need to advert to the contents of the chargesheets and the material collated during the investigation by the SIT against each of the accused in respect of which cognizance has already been taken by the competent Court.   18. The moot question to be answered in these appeals is about the purport of Section 24 of the 2000 Act.  Section 24(1)(a), which is crucial for our purpose, reads thus: “ 24.   Cognizance   of   and   investigation   into   an offence .­(1)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in the Code, ­ (a) No information about the commission of an offence   of   organized   crime   under   this   Act   shall   be recorded by a police officer without the prior approval of the police officer not below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General of Police; …...” 19. The purport of this section, upon its textual construct, posits that information regarding commission of an offence of organized crime under the 2000 Act can be recorded by a police officer only 18 upon obtaining prior approval of the police officer not below the rank   of   the   Deputy   Inspector   General   of   Police.     That   is   the quintessence for recording of offence of organized crime under the Act by a police officer. 20.  What is crucial in this provision is the factum of recording of offence of organized crime and not of recording of a crime against an offender as such.  Further, the right question to be posed at this stage   is:   whether   prior   approval   accorded   by   the   competent authority under Section 24(1)(a) is valid?   In that, whether there was   discernible   information   about   commission   of   an   offence   of organized   crime   by   known   and   unknown   persons   as   being members   of   the   organized   crime   syndicate?     Resultantly,   what needed to be enquired into by the appropriate authority (in the present case, Commissioner of Police) is: whether the factum of commission of offence of organized crime by an organized crime syndicate can be culled out from the material placed before him for grant of prior approval?  That alone is the question to be enquired into even by the Court at this stage.  It is cardinal to observe that only   after   registration   of   FIR,   investigation   for   the   concerned 19 offence would proceed — in which the details about the specific role and the identity of the persons involved in such offence can be unravelled and referred to in the chargesheet to be filed before the competent Court. Concededly, the original FIR registered in the present case 21. was for an ordinary crime of murder against unknown persons.  At the   relevant   time,   the   material   regarding   offence   having   been committed by an organized crime syndicate was not known.  That information came to the fore only after investigation of the offence by the SIT, as has been mentioned in the report submitted to the Commissioner   of   Police,   Bengaluru   City   for   seeking   his   prior approval to invoke Section 3 of the 2000 Act.  Once again, at this stage, the Commissioner of Police had focussed only on the factum of information regarding the commission of organized crime by an organized crime syndicate and on being  prima facie  satisfied about the presence of material on record in that regard, rightly proceeded to accord prior approval for invoking Section 3 of the 2000 Act. The prior approval was not for registering crime against individual offenders   as   such,   but   for   recording   of   information   regarding 20 commission of an offence of organized crime under the 2000 Act. Therefore, the specific role of the concerned accused is not required to be and is not so mentioned in the stated prior approval.  That aspect   would   be   unravelled   during   the   investigation,   after registration of offence of organized crime.   The High Court, thus, examined   the   matter   by   applying   erroneous   scale.     The observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment clearly reveal that it has glossed over the core and tangible facts.  22. Notably,   the   High   Court,   without   analysing   the   material presented along with chargesheet on the basis of which cognizance has been taken by the competent Court including against the writ petitioner­Mohan   Nayak.N,   concerning   commission   of   organized crime by the organized crime syndicate of which he is allegedly a member, committed manifest error and exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the chargesheet filed before the competent Court  qua  the writ petitioner­Mohan Nayak.N regarding offences under Section 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the 2000 Act.  The High Court did so being impressed by the exposition of this Court in  Lalit Somdatta 21 25 Nagpal ,   in   particular   paragraph   63   thereof.     Indeed,   that exposition would have bearing only if the entire material was to be analysed   by   the   High   Court   to   conclude   that   the   facts   do  not disclose justification for application of provisions of the 2000 Act including  qua  the writ petitioner­Mohan Nayak.N, provided he was being  proceeded  only   for  offence   of   organized   crime   punishable under Section 3(1) of the 2000 Act.   For, the reported decision deals   with   the   argument   regarding   invocation   of   provision analogous   to   Section   3(1)   of   the   2000   Act.     Be   it   noted   that requirement of more than two chargesheets is in reference to the continuing unlawful activities of the organized crime syndicate and not     individual member thereof.   Reliance was also placed on qua 26 Brijesh Singh .   Even this decision is of no avail to the private respondent­Mohan   Nayak.N   for   the   same   reason   noted   whilst 27 distinguishing  Lalit Somdatta Nagpal .    Further, the questions considered in that case, as can be discerned from paragraph 12 of the reported decision, are regarding jurisdiction of the competent Court   to   take   notice   of   chargesheets   filed   against   the   accused 25  supra at Footnote No.5 26  supra at Footnote No.6 (paragraph 25) 27  supra at Footnote No.5 22 outside   the   State.     It   is   not   an   authority   on   the   issue   under consideration.  23. We may hasten to add that the fact that the Investigating Agency was unable to collect material during investigation against the writ petitioner­Mohan Nayak.N for offence under Section 3(1) of the   2000   Act,   does   not   mean   that   the   information   regarding commission of a crime by him within the meaning of Section 3(2), 3(3) or 3(4) of the 2000 Act cannot be recorded and investigated against him as being a member of the organized crime syndicate and/or   having   played   role   of   an   abettor,   being   party   to   the conspiracy to commit organized crime or of being a facilitator, as the   case   may   be.     For   the   latter   category   of   offence,   it   is   not essential that more than two chargesheets have been filed against the   person   so   named,   before   a   competent   court   within   the preceding period of ten years and that court had taken cognizance of such offence.  That requirement applies essentially to an offence punishable only under Section 3(1) of the 2000 Act. 23 24. As regards offences punishable under Section 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) or  3(5),  it  can  proceed  against  any  person   sans   such  previous offence registered against him, if there is material to indicate that he happens to be a member of the organized crime syndicate who had committed the offences in question and it can be established that there is material about his nexus with the accused who is a member   of   the   organized   crime   syndicate.     This   position   is expounded in the case of   Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsing Sharma 28 which has been quoted with approval vs. State of Maharashtra   29 in paragraph 85 of the judgment in  Prasad Shrikant Purohit . The same   reads thus:

28  (2005) 5 SCC 294 29  supra at Footnote No.10 30  supra at Footnote No.28 24

(emphasis supplied) 25. It   is   not   necessary   to   multiply   authorities   in   this   regard. Suffice it to observe that the High Court in the present case was essentially concerned with the legality of prior approval granted by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City dated 14.08.2018 for invoking Section 3 of the 2000 Act and thus, to allow recording of information  regarding   commission  of  offence   of   organized   crime under the 2000 Act and to investigate the same.   As aforesaid, while considering the proposal for grant of prior approval under 25 Section 24(1)(a) of the 2000 Act, what is essential is the satisfaction of the competent authority that the material placed before him does reveal presence of credible information regarding commission of an offence of organized crime by the organized crime syndicate and, therefore, allow invocation of Section 3 of the 2000 Act.  As a consequence of which, investigation of that crime can be taken forward by the Investigating Agency and chargesheet can be filed before the concerned Court and upon grant of sanction by the competent authority under Section 24(2), the competent Court can take cognizance of the case. 26. At the stage of granting prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2000 Act, therefore, the competent authority is not required to wade through the material placed by the Investigating Agency before him along with the proposal for grant of prior approval to ascertain   the   specific   role   of   each   accused.     The   competent authority   has   to   focus   essentially   on   the   factum   whether   the information/material reveals the commission of a crime which is an organized crime committed by the organized crime syndicate. In that, the prior approval is  qua  offence and not the offender as 26 such.   As long as the incidents referred to in earlier crimes are committed by a group of persons and one common individual was involved in all the incidents, the offence under the 2000 Act can be 31 invoked.  This Court in  Prasad Shrikant Purohit   in paragraphs 61 and 98 expounded that at the stage of taking cognizance, the competent   Court   takes   cognizance   of   the   offence   and   not   the offender.  This analogy applies even at the stage of grant of prior approval for invocation of provisions of the 2000 Act.   The prior sanction under Section 24(2), however, may require enquiry into the specific role of the offender in the commission of organized crime, namely, he himself singly or jointly or as a member of the organized crime syndicate indulged in commission of the stated offences so as to attract the punishment provided under Section 3(1) of the 2000 Act.  However, if the role of the offender is merely that of a facilitator or of an abettor as referred to in Section 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) or 3(5), the requirement of named person being involved in more than two chargesheets registered against him in the past is not relevant.   Regardless of that, he can be proceeded under the 2000   Act,   if   the   material   collected   by   the   Investigating   Agency 31  supra at Footnote No.10 27 reveals that he had nexus with the accused who is a member of the organized crime syndicate or such nexus is related to the offence in the nature of organized crime.  Thus, he need not be a person who had direct role in the commission of an organized crime as such. 27. A  priori , the conclusion reached by the High Court in partly allowing   the   writ   petition   filed   by   the   writ   petitioner­Mohan Nayak.N, is manifestly wrong and cannot be countenanced.  In any case, the High Court has completely glossed over the crucial fact that the writ petition was filed only after the sanction was accorded by   the   competent   authority   under   Section   24(2)   and   more   so cognizance was also taken by the competent Court of the offence of organized   crime   committed   by   the   members   of   organized   crime syndicate including the writ petitioner — to which there was no challenge.  The High Court has not analysed the efficacy of these developments   as   disentitling   the   writ   petitioner   belated   relief claimed in respect of prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2000   Act.     Further,   the   High   Court   has   clearly   exceeded   its jurisdiction   in   quashing   the   chargesheet   filed   against   the   writ petitioner­Mohan Nayak.N for offences punishable under Section 28 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the 2000 Act at this stage [of prior approval under Section 24(1)(a)]. 28. Taking   any   view   of   the   matter,   therefore,   these   appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court needs to be set aside. 29. While parting, we may clarify that rejection of writ petition filed by the private respondent­Mohan Nayak.N will not come in his way in pursuing other remedies as may be available to him and permissible in law.  We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion either way on the merits of such remedy.   In other words, this judgment is limited to the consideration of question whether   prior   approval   dated   14.08.2018   granted   by   the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, in connection with offence registered as Crime No.221/2017, is valid or otherwise.  We have held that the same does not suffer from any infirmity including  qua private   respondent­Mohan   Nayak.N   having   noted   his   intimate nexus with the brain behind the entire event being none other than Amol Kale and master arms trainer Rajesh D. Bangera who are 29 part and parcel of an organized crime syndicate and committed organized crimes as such.   30. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed.  The impugned judgment and order dated 22.04.2021 passed by the High Court is set aside and the  writ petition filed by Mohan  Nayak.N  stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. ………………………………J.       (A.M. Khanwilkar) ………………………………J. (Dinesh Maheshwari) ………………………………J.       (C.T. Ravikumar) New Delhi; October 21, 2021.