1 wp1171.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1171 OF 2017
Ajinkya @ Jimmy s/o. Dilip Parsoya,
Aged about 23 years, Occ. Farmer,
r/o. Pandharkawada,
Tq.Kelapur, District Yavatmal. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra,
Through Additional Collector/
Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate,
Kelapur. .......... RESPONDENT
____________________________________________________________
Mr.P.K.Bezalwar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.D.P.Thakre, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
____________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 02:03:35 :::
2 wp1171.17.odt
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 12th December, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. Petitioner has challenged impugned order dt.8.12.2017 passed by the Additional Collector/Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Kelapur. The petitioner is externed for the period from 9.12.2017 to 14.12.2017 from the jurisdiction of Police Station, Pandharkawada.
3. It is submitted that the respondent passed the impugned order dt.8.12.2017 without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The impugned order is passed u/s.144 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the petitioner is engaged in commission of offences punishable under the Bombay Prevention of ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 02:03:35 ::: 3 wp1171.17.odt Gambling Act and therefore, there is possibility of breach of public peace and tranquility.
4. It is submitted that wife of petitioner is contesting election. The petitioner is a social worker. He has to campaign in the election for his wife. Intentionally, the impugned order is passed so as to deprive him to support his wife. At last, it is prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dt.8.12.2017.
5. Heard Mr.P.K.Bezalwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.P.Thakre, learned A.P.P. For Respondent/State..
6. Perused the impugned order. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is only stated that the petitioner used to play gambling. Some cases are pending against the petitioner in respect of the offences punishable under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. Nothing is stated in the impugned order that presence of petitioner is dangerous to the public due to some other crimes/offences. Offences under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act are not so serious which would cause alarm or breach of peace. It appears from the impugned order that no any opportunity of hearing ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 02:03:35 ::: 4 wp1171.17.odt was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Prima facie, the impugned order shows that the petitioner is externed from the jurisdiction of Police Station, Pandharkawada for the period from 9.12.2017 to 14.12.2017 during the election period. This order appears to be mala fide because wife of the petitioner is contesting election. Nothing is on record to show that presence of petitioner is dangerous to public and would cause any breach of public peace or tranquility. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. We, therefore, pass the following order.
// ORDER // The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i) of the Criminal Writ Petition.
We hereby quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent in externment proceedings u/s.144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing No.63 of 2017, dt.8.12.2017.
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 02:03:35 :::
5 wp1171.17.odt
Hamdast is granted.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 02:03:35 :::
6 wp1171.17.odt
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 02:03:35 :::