1 jg.wp 959.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 959 of 2017
Petitioner : Chandramani s/o Hiralal Meshram,
Aged about 45 years, Occ. : Private,
R/o. Manewada Ring Road, Near
Ranjana Lawn, Second Bridge, Nagpur
// Versus //
Respondents : (1) The State of Maharashtra
through Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
(2) Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone-4, Nagpur City, Nagpur.
Shri A. M. Gedam, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri S. S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents
CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE AND
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
Date : 21/11/2017.
Judgment (Per : M.G. Giratkar, J) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of externment dated 5-7-2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-4, Nagpur.
.....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:05:16 :::
2 jg.wp 959.17.odt
3. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 issued show cause notice on 26-12-2016 under Section 56(i)(a)(b) and Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act to the petitioner as to why he should not be externed for a period of two years from Nagpur City and District. The petitioner filed reply dated 4-1-2017. The petitioner has specifically replied that there is no any ground to extern him from Nagpur District. The respondent no. 2 has not properly appreciated the facts and passed illegal order dated 5-7-2017. It is submitted that in the said order, reference was made to the cases registered in Police Station, Ajni, Nagpur and Police Station, Samudrapur, District Wardha. It is also mentioned that witnesses are not willing to come forward to depose against the petitioner.
4. It is submitted that cases shown pending against the petitioner are of the year 2016 for the offence punishable under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act and one criminal case registered by Police Station, Samudrapur, District Wardha. It is submitted criminal case registered by Police Station, Samudrapur was wrongly taken into consideration by the authority. At last, it is prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order.
5. Heard learned counsel Shri Gedam for the petitioner. He has .....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:05:16 :::
3 jg.wp 959.17.odt submitted that the respondent no. 2 wrongly considered criminal case/ crime registered by Police Station, Samudrapur. All other criminal cases are in respect of Gambling Act, therefore, impugned order passed under Section 56 is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submission, he pointed out judgment of this Court in the case of Zuber Shah Vs. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Jalna reported in (2014) 1 BomCR(Cri) 491.
6. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Doifode for the respondents. He has supported the impugned order.
7. Perused the impugned order. From perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that all the criminal cases/crimes registered by Police Station, Ajni are in respect of offence punishable under Section 12A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act. Only one case/crime is registered by Police Station, Samudrapur, District Wardha. Crime registered by Police Station, Samudrapur is not in respect of the area of Nagpur. The respondent no. 2 has wrongly taken into consideration the said crime against the applicant. Moreover, from the perusal of reports filed on record, it is clear that Yogesh Ramesh Fuse and Sau. Manisha Karmore lodged the reports against each other. The petitioner is shown one of the accused. The respondent no. 2 wrongly considered the .....4/-
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:05:16 :::
4 jg.wp 959.17.odt offence punishable under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent no. 2 has not applied his mind while passing the order.
8. This Court in the case of Zuber Shah Vs. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Jalna (cited supra) has observed that the offences registered against the petitioner under provisions of the Gambling Act, cannot be said to be so grave and serious to cause disturbance to the public at large. Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act (now, the Maharashtra Police Act) deals for action if the person is engaged in commission of an offence, involving force or violence or an offence under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code or other dangerous activities. The confidential statements of few witnesses, to which learned APP invited our attention, demonstrate that the writ petitioner has indulged in illegal betting (Matka) activities. ... Howeever, application of extreme and stringent provisions of Bombay Police Act, squeezing rights of petitioner of his liberty, should not have been applied as a parameter and in routine manner. ... Consequently, impugned order of externment is quashed and set aside.
9. In the present case also, not a single offence under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code is pending against the petitioner .....5/-
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:05:16 :::
5 jg.wp 959.17.odt registered in any of the Police Station of Nagpur District. All the cases are in respect of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act. Those cases are wrongly taken into consideration by the respondent no. 2. One of the crime is registered by Police Station, Samudrapur is not in respect of crime of Nagpur District. Hence, in view of cited judgment, impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. In the result, we pass the following order :
(a) Writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i).
(b) The impugned order of externment dated 5-7-2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 is hereby quashed and set aside.
10. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
...../-
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:05:16 :::