1 jg.cri. wp 1042.17.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1042 OF 2017
Sudhir Arun Kokne
Aged 35 years, Occ. : Labour,
R/o. Gajanan Nagar, Bichu Tekdi,
Amravati,
At Present : C/o Dhanraj Kisanrao
Devare, R/o Kamargaon
Distt. Washim. ... Petitioner
VERSUS
(1) Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone- 1, District - Amravati.
(2) Assistant Police Commissioner,
Division-Frezarpura, District -
Amravati.
(3) Police Station Officer,
P.S. Frezarpura, Amravati. ... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P. V. Navlani, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE AND
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 19-12-2017
JUDGMENT (Per : M. G. Giratkar, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:01:54 :::
2 jg.cri. wp 1042.17.odt
2. The petitioner has challenged the externment order dated 20-9-2017 passed by the respondent no. 1. It is submitted that impugned order is passed without stating the existence of material showing likelihood of similar offence being committed in near future by the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 issued show cause notice dated 8-6-2017. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice. It is submitted that only in two cases under the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, the petitioner is convicted. The respondent no. 1 not recorded satisfaction about the commission of breach of public peace and tranquility. No material witness come forward to state against the petitioner. In-camera statement is not recorded. There is no likelihood of committing similar offences by the petitioner, hence, impugned order be quashed and set aside.
3. Heard learned counsel Shri Navlani for the petitioner. He has pointed out show cause notice and the impugned order. From the perusal of impugned order, it is clear that six cases under the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act were pending against the petitioner out of which in two cases, he is convicted to pay fine etc. One case for the offence punishable under Section 324, 504 read with ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:01:54 ::: 3 jg.cri. wp 1042.17.odt Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is pending against the petitioner.
4. From the perusal of impugned order, it is clear that in- camera statements were not recorded to show that witnesses are threatened by the petitioner. Nothing is on record to show that existence of the petitioner in his area is dangerous to the public, person and property. Offences under Section 12A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act is not so serious offence. The impugned order does not show the satisfaction in respect of need to extern the petitioner. Hence, impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. With this finding, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i) and we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20-9-2017 passed by the respondent no. 1.
(ii) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:01:54 :::