AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2633 ::2010 AIR SCW 3450 ::AIR 2011 SC( Cri) 1149 ::2010 (6) AIR Bom R 106 ::(2010) 3 BomCR(Cri) 219 ::(2010) 3 Mad LJ(Cri) 81 ::2010 (5) SCC 246 ::(2010) 4 Scale 276 ::(2011) 1 Mad LJ 382

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Bombay)

Hon'ble Judge(s): R. V. Raveendran, Mukundakam Sharma , JJ

(A) Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (30 of 1999) , S.2(1)(e)— Validity - Phrase "promoting insurgency" in S.2(1)(e) - Denote possible driving force for "origanized crime" - It comes within concept of public order - Even if said part of Act incidentally encroaches upon field under Entry 1 of Union list of Constitution - Same held not ultra vires in view of doctrine of pith and substance. Doctrines - Doctrine of pith and substance. Constitution of India , Art.246, Sch.VII List I Entry 1, Sch.VII List II Entry 1, Sch.VII List II Entry 1, Sch.VII List III Entry 1, Sch.VII List III Entry 2, Sch.VII List III Entry 12— If it could be shown that core area and subject matter of the legislation is covered by an entry in State List, then any incidental encroachment upon entry in Union List would not be enough so as to render the State Law invalid and such an incidental encroachment will not make the legislation - ultra vires the constitution.(Para 38) The definition of "organized crime" continued in S. 2(1)(e) of MCOCA makes it clear that the phrase "promoting insurgency" is used to denote a possible driving force for "organized crime". It is evident that the MCOCA does not punish "insurgency" per se, but punishes those who are guilty of running a crime organization, one of the motives of which may be promotion o....