The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that invoking Section 111(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 requires proof of prior judicial cognizance against the accused, not merely multiple charge sheets. This ruling reinforces the strict statutory prerequisites for prosecuting organized crime and prevents speculative charges based on unverified allegations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The revision petitioner, Ashok @ Assu Seth Tilak, was charged under Section 111(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in connection with the theft of an e-rickshaw and its batteries from a fabrication shop in Dewas. The prosecution sought to invoke the organized crime provision against him based on his alleged association with a group involved in repeated thefts across Dewas, Ujjain, and Shajapur. The charge sheet also included Section 317(2) for possession of stolen property.
Key Facts
- The stolen e-rickshaw belonged to the Janpad Panchayat, Dewas, purchased on 12.02.2022 from Aron International
- The e-rickshaw was tied outside Javed Hussain’s fabrication shop on 03.03.2025 at 11:00 PM
- On 04.03.2025, the complainant discovered the chain had been cut and the vehicle missing; batteries and a hydraulic unit valued at Rs. 30,000 were stolen
- FIR No. 1276/2025 was registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Dewas on 19.03.2025 under Section 303(2) BNS
- Six accused were identified: Ashok @ Assu Seth Tilak, Mohd Parvez @ Ajju, Arbaj @ Sonu, Muzaffar @ Raja, Lakhan S/o Jorawar, and Gokul S/o Munnalal Choudhary
- Lakhan and Gokul remained absconding; final report was filed on 09.06.2025 with charges under Sections 303(2), 317(2), and 111(4) BNS
- Three batteries were recovered from the petitioner’s garage on 09.06.2025; no serial numbers, identification reports, or complainant confirmation linked them to the stolen e-rickshaw
- The prosecution relied on memorandum statements from co-accused Arbaj, Bharat Rathore, and Muzaffar recorded in Crime No. 316/2025 (Ujjain) and Crime No. 276/2025 (Dewas)
- The petitioner had no prior criminal record; no charge sheets or cognizance orders against him were produced
Procedural History
- 19.03.2025: FIR No. 1276/2025 registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Dewas
- 09.06.2025: Final report submitted under Section 193 BNS, 2023, invoking Section 111(4) BNS
- 09.10.2025: 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas framed charges under Sections 317(2) and 111(4) BNS
- 22.10.2025: Revision petition filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore
- 03.02.2026: Hearing concluded
- 30.04.2026: Judgment delivered
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that Section 111(4) BNS requires two essential conditions: (1) the accused must be a member of an organized crime syndicate, and (2) more than one charge sheet must have been filed against him before a competent court within the preceding ten years, with cognizance taken by that court. No such material existed in the case record. The prosecution relied solely on uncorroborated statements of co-accused and failed to establish any financial nexus, communication, or prior judicial proceedings against him. The recovery of generic batteries without identification was insufficient to prove guilt.
For the Respondent
The State argued that the petitioner was part of a syndicate operating across Dewas, Ujjain, and Shajapur, committing similar thefts. It cited letters dated 08.05.2025 and 12.12.2025 indicating that the petitioner was linked to five other cases (Crime Nos. 276/2025, 297/2025, 358/2025, 79/2025, and 316/2025) under Section 303(2) BNS. It claimed these multiple cases demonstrated a pattern of organized criminal activity and justified the invocation of Section 111(4).
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the charge under Section 111(4) BNS, 2023, and direction to the trial court to reconsider the applicability of Section 112 BNS, 2023, which governs petty organized crime with lower thresholds.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 111(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 can be invoked against an accused in the absence of any prior cognizance order by a competent court in respect of any cognizable offence punishable with three years or more, within the preceding ten years.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2010) 2 SCC 398 to argue that at the stage of framing charges, the court must examine whether a prima facie case exists based on credible, independent material. He emphasized that Aamir Bashir Magray v. State (UT of J&K) and Amrish Rana v. State of H.P. held that mere filing of multiple charge sheets is insufficient without judicial cognizance. He cited State of Maharashtra v. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane and State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta to establish that organized crime under BNS requires a continuing unlawful activity after the enactment of the law, not merely past allegations. The prosecution’s reliance on uncorroborated statements of co-accused violated the principle that such statements lack substantive evidentiary value.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the petitioner’s involvement in five distinct theft cases across three districts demonstrated a pattern of organized criminal conduct. It argued that the term "preceding period of ten years" in Section 111(1)(ii) BNS includes offences committed before the enactment of BNS, 2023, and that the cumulative nature of the charge sheets justified invoking Section 111(4). It further submitted that the recovery of batteries from the petitioner’s garage, coupled with the co-accused’s statements, formed a prima facie case.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed statutory interpretation of Section 111(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, emphasizing that the provision is penal in nature and must be strictly construed. The Court observed that the definition of "continuing unlawful activity" under Explanation (ii) to Section 111(1) explicitly requires that "more than one charge-sheet has been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence."
"The filing of charge sheets or taking of cognizance in the past does not, by itself, constitute an offence punishable under Section 111. What is equally important is the commission of an offence by the accused that constitutes continuing unlawful activity after the enactment of the law."
The Court noted that the prosecution had not produced a single cognizance order against the petitioner in any prior case. The five cases cited by the State were all pending investigations or trials at the time of framing charges, with no court having taken cognizance of any offence against him. The Court distinguished between "charge sheets" and "cognizance orders," holding that the latter is a mandatory precondition.
The Court further held that the recovery of three generic batteries without any identification report, serial number matching, or complainant testimony could not establish a link to the stolen e-rickshaw. The statements of co-accused, uncorroborated by independent evidence, were insufficient to establish membership in an organized syndicate.
The Court also rejected the State’s argument that prior offences could be aggregated to satisfy Section 111(4), citing State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta, which clarified that prior acts are relevant only as antecedents, not as offences under BNS unless they form part of a continuing unlawful activity after the law’s enforcement.
The Verdict
The revision petition was partly allowed. The charges under Section 111(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner were set aside. The trial court was directed to consider the applicability of Section 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which governs petty organized crime, after giving both parties an opportunity to be heard. The court emphasized that the prosecution may file a supplementary final report if further evidence emerges to satisfy the requirements of Section 111(4).
What This Means For Similar Cases
Cognizance Is Mandatory, Not Optional
- Practitioners must verify the existence of at least two prior cognizance orders against an accused before invoking Section 111(4) BNS
- Merely citing multiple FIRs or charge sheets without judicial cognizance will not sustain a charge under this provision
- Defence counsel should immediately challenge Section 111(4) charges where no cognizance orders are produced
Corroboration of Co-Accused Statements Is Non-Negotiable
- Statements of co-accused cannot be the sole basis for implicating another person under organized crime provisions
- Independent evidence - such as forensic reports, financial trails, or communication records - is essential to establish syndicate membership
- Courts will not accept speculative inferences from uncorroborated confessions
Recovery of Generic Items Requires Linkage Evidence
- Recovery of common items like batteries, tools, or cash without unique identifiers (serial numbers, ownership proof, witness identification) cannot form the basis of a criminal charge
- Prosecution must produce technical reports, chain-of-custody records, or comparative analysis to establish nexus between recovered items and stolen property
- Absence of such evidence renders recovery irrelevant and inadmissible for drawing inferences of guilt
