Mr Khalil Ahmed was tried on a number of offences contrary to the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) including sections 3(2), 3(4) and section 4. He was also accused of offences contrary to the Indian Penal Code 1860, including sections 384, 387, 467, 468, 471 and 506. Other offences were discussed including 25 of the Arms Act 1959.

It was established by the trial judge that in order for a prima facie case to be made against Mr Khalil Ahmed under the MCOCA, the prosecution had to establish at least one of two facts – that he was running an organised crime syndicate or that he was acting on behalf of one.

In relation to the MCOCA offences it was found that the prosecution had failed to establish that Mr Khalil Ahmed has committed an offence either as a member of organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. The prosecution submitted that its failure to establish these facts was due to the absence of cooperation by Mr Khalil Ahmed. However the trial judge declared this not to be the case as the right to silence is a fundamental right of an accused person. Due to various problems with the investigation it was found by the trial judge that there was no evidence that Mr Ahmed was running an organised crime syndicate. Similarly there was no evidence that Mr Ahmed had ever been associated with a gang or that he had been associated with persons involved in the alleged activities.

In relation to the existence of the various properties owned by Mr Khalil Ahmed, the trial judge did not find evidence to link them with criminal activity including organised crime.

In relation to the financial assets of Mr Khalil Ahmed, the trial judge found that there was insufficient evidence to link these with organised crime. It was noted that because Mr Khalil Ahmed's Tour and Travels business received cash payments, defence counsel's contention that Mr Ahmed's money had come from this business could not be disbelieved. It was also suggested by the trial judge that it was absurd to assert that a person with criminal intent would deposit the proceeds of crime into a bank account.

The trial court found insufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case against Mr Khalil Ahmed for the offences punishable under section 3(2), 3(4) and section 4 of the MCOCA. Owing to the link to organised crime not having been established, the offences contrary to the Indian Penal Code were sent back to the Magistrates' Court.

The State Government of India appealed the findings of the case. It was argued that the trial judge had not appreciated the evidence collected by the prosecution and had ignored submissions which were fully supported by the concrete evidence. It was also argued upon appeal that the trial judge had believed the contentions of the defence counsel despite the fact that he did not produce any documentary or reliable evidence in support of his claim.

The High court judge concurred with the trial judge and concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish that Mr Khalil Ahmed had committed an offence either as a member of organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. Accordingly, Mr Khalil Ahmed’s acquittal was upheld.