Judgment wp485.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 485 OF 2016.
Sunil Shriram Wankhede,
Aged about 33 years,
Occu- Private, resident of Ashok
Nagar, Ner, District Yavatmal
presently c/o. Annapurna
Maruti Yangar, Ward No.54,
Ful Fail, Wardha. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. Sub Divisional Officer,
Darwha, District Yavatmal.
3. The Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Ner,
District Yavatmal.
4. Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Darwha. ....RESPONDENTS
.
::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2016 00:21:21 :::
Judgment wp485.16
2
-----------------------------------
Mr. Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. M.H. Deshpande, A.P.P. for Respondents.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 16, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J) Heard Shri Mir Nagman Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M.H. Deshpande, learned A.P.P. for respondents. Considering the nature of controversy involved and with consent of the parties, Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. Order of externment under Section 56[1][b] of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 passed on 12.05.2016 externing the petitioner for a period of one year out of Districts of Yavatmal, Washim and Amravati is questioned by urging that it is excessive, alleged crimes have no live connection with it, the finding of subjective satisfaction is vitiated because of acquittal of petitioner from three offences is lost sight.
::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2016 00:21:21 :::Judgment wp485.16 3
3. Learned A.P.P. is relying on the reply-affidavit. She points out that two of the offences are compromised and compounded, hence, the order does not suffer from any non-application of mind. It is further pointed out that all relevant facts have been looked into and the competent Authority has found it appropriate to extern the petitioner from three districts.
4. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to order dated 08.03.2011, by which FIR No.103/2009 is compromised. He points out that in so far as other crimes are concerned, there are judgments dated 24.12.2010 in Regular Criminal Case No. 477/2009 and dated 23.12.2014 in Regular Criminal Case No. 314/2014, acquitting the petitioner.
5. We find that only in one matter there was compounding, while in other two matters, the petitioner has been exonerated. This acquittal does not find consideration in the impugned order dated 12.05.2016.
6. Show cause notice served upon petitioner asking him to explain as to why he should not be sent out of Yavatmal and Amravati districts for two years. It does not carry mention of Washim District, however, in the ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2016 00:21:21 ::: Judgment wp485.16 4 impugned order he is also externed out of Washim District, this is also an incident of non-application of mind.
7. 6 cases looked into in the impugned order are from Police Station, Ner. In 2 out of these 6 cases, petitioner is acquitted, while one case is compounded. Though the respondents in their reply affidavit have commented upon legal effect of compounding, the Authority which has to reach subjective satisfaction ought to have considered its impact. However, that has not been done. Thus, this again shows non-application of mind.
8. Though the offences are in relation to one Tahsil i.e. Ner of District Yavatmal, petitioner has been externed out of entire Yavatmal District as also from adjacent Districts of Amravati and Washim. So even on this count, the order is excessive. The show cause notice served upon the petitioner is dated 03.08.2014. 2 offences looked into therein are of the year 2009, 3rd is of 2010, while 4th is of 2012. Remaining two offences are of the year 2014. Their dates are 31.05.2014 and 11.06.2014. Show cause notice has thus been issued more than one year after these dates. The impugned order has been passed on 12.05.2016 i.e. almost two years after those dates. We therefore, find substance in the contentions raised by the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2016 00:21:22 :::Judgment wp485.16 5
9. For all these reasons we find the impugned order and subjective satisfaction reached therein unsustainable. The order dated12.05.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Darwha is accordingly quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2016 00:21:22 :::
Judgment wp485.16
6
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed judgment/order.
Uploaded by : R.G. Dhuriya. ig Uploaded on : 00.08.2016 ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2016 00:21:22 :::