Shah's arrest will be deterrent to elements in Bollywood

Shah's arrest will be deterrent to elements in Bollywood

For high-profile Commissioner of Police M.N. Singh, it was a tough task to detain leading diamond merchant and film financier Bharat Shah under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act.

On one hand, prominent film personalities were building up pressure on Singh -- an IPS official of the 1967 batch -- and on the other, the Mumbai police was being criticised for booking Shah under the `draconian' legislation. In his first interview after Shah's dramatic arrest, Singh speaks exclusively to PRAFULLA MARPAKWAR on the circumstances under which Shah was detained and on the advantages of the MCOC Act. Excerpts:

Now that the criminal case against Bharat Shah is halfway through, can the real story behind his detention be divulged?
Legally speaking, it won't be proper to disclose the facts leading to Shah's detention, since the case is still on. All I will say is that in October 2000, the Crime Branch sleuths taped a conversation of some underworld elements. We followed it up carefully and apprehended the involvement of a gangster. We have presented our views, let the court decide.

What was the reaction of the film industry?
The fact remains that some film stars, as also film producers, are hand-in-glove with the underworld. Because of such undesirable elements, others of their ilk too have to suffer.

How is the law and order situation, particularly after Shah's detention?
I don't claim that the underworld elements have completely disappeared, but the Mumbai police have put up sustained efforts to keep the situation under control. We are in the process of redrafting our strategy to curb gangland activities.

Shah's detention under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime (MCOC) Act has raised fresh debate on its validity. The charge being that it is a draconian legislation. How you react to such allegations?
Such allegations are made because a powerful and rich person like Shah has been detained. I have a poser for the civil liberties and human rights activists. The legislation came into force in February 1999. Where were they for the past two years? Now they have suddenly discovered that it is a draconian legislation? We can't have two separate sets of legislation for the rich and the poor.

Civil liberties and human rights activists feel it is stronger than the TADA. Do you agree?
That's rubbish. These allegations have been made by some armchair opinion makers. The MCOC Act has been drafted on the basis of the guidelines prescribed by the Supreme Court in the Kartar Singh case. I was a member of the high-level committee set up by the state government to draft a new legislation to tackle gangland activities. The draft was approved not only by the law and judiciary department, but also by the CBI and the Union Home Ministry. Subsequently, after it was passed by the legislature, the President has also given his assent as required under the law. In addition, as per my information, the Supreme Court has upheld its validity. Under such circumstances, it would be patently wrong to say that it is a draconian legislation.

Is it easy to book a criminal under the MCOC Act?
In view of the stringent conditions laid down, it is difficult to book a criminal. It can't be applied to the general criminals. The law is applicable only in cases where atleast two chargesheets are pending or disposed off against the criminal during the past 10 years. Before registering the case, permission has to be obtained from an official of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police and the chargesheet has to be approved by the Commissioner of Police. In Shah's case, approval was granted by D. Shivanandan, who is of the rank of Special Inspector General.

Since you claim that MCOC Act is effective, has the legislation helped the police to curb crime rate?
Before getting into a debate on the crime rate, one must understand the circumstances under which the law was enacted. TADA had lapsed and it was difficult to tackle organised crime with the existing legislations. I would say that the existing law has failed to check crimes. From the cases registered by the police, it appears that the results are indeed quick. Most cases registered after February 1999, have secured maximum number of convictions. The greatest advantage of the new law is that bail is not granted without hearing the public prosecutor. In other words, there is no provision of anticipatory bail.