1 wp1034.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1034 OF 2017
Amit s/o. Ramlal Biriya,
Aged about 30 years, Occ.
Service, r/o. Sawaratoli,
Gondia, Tq. and Distt. Gondia. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1.State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Distt. Gondia.
3.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Gondia.
::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 02:14:45 :::
2 wp1034.17.odt
4.Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Gondia.
5.Ld. Divisional Commissioner,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. .......... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Mr.U.R.Phasate, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for the Respondents/State.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 18th December, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner has challenged externment order dt.13.12.2016 passed by respondent no.3. It is submitted that proposal for externment was submitted to respondent no.3 on 20.4.2015, based on false grounds. Respondent no.2 submitted report to respondent no.3. Show cause notice u/s.58 of the ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 02:14:45 ::: 3 wp1034.17.odt Maharashtra Police Act, dt.17.10.2016 was served to the petitioner. After receipt of said notice, the petitioner appeared before respondent no.3 on 7.12.2016. Petitioner submitted his explanation before respondent no.3. Petitioner has pointed out that, out of five cases mentioned in the show cause notice, he has been acquitted in four cases. He has pointed out that he is a peace loving person and there is no likelihood of breach of peace. Without considering the explanation, respondent no.3 passed the impugned order externing the petitioner for a period of two years from Gondia district.
4. It is submitted that the impugned order shows pending cases against the petitioner, though he is acquitted in four criminal cases out of five cases.
5. Heard Mr.U.R.Phasate, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He has pointed out show cause notice and submitted that five criminal cases were shown pending against the petitioner. He has pointed out explanation submitted by the petitioner. Learned Counsel pointed out the impugned order and submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside because five criminal cases were shown against the petitioner, out of which he is acquitted in ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 02:14:45 ::: 4 wp1034.17.odt four criminal cases. He is not convicted in any of the criminal cases. Only one criminal case is pending against him. In-camera statements were not recorded. Nothing is brought on record to show that presence of petitioner in Gondia district is dangerous to public/person and property.
6. Heard Mr.S.S.Doifode, learned A.P.P. for the respondents.
7. Perused the show cause notice. In the show cause notice, five criminal cases are mentioned as against the petitioner. Out of five cases, three cases were shown pending. Petitioner gave his explanation to the show cause notice on 13.12.2016. He has submitted that he is acquitted in most of the cases. Copies of Judgment of Criminal Case nos.1003 of 2011 and 775 of 2012 are filed on record. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is acquitted in four criminal cases and only one criminal case is pending against him. This factor is not taken into consideration by respondent no.3 while passing the impugned order. In-camera statements are not recorded by respondent no.3. There is nothing on record to show that presence of petitioner in Gondia district is dangerous to ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 02:14:45 ::: 5 wp1034.17.odt public/person or property. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, we pass the following order.
The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (3) of the petition.
We quash and set aside the impugned order of externment dt.13.12.2016 passed by respondent no.3.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE [jaiswal] ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 02:14:45 ::: 6 wp1034.17.odt ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 02:14:45 :::