1 wp970.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 970 OF 2017
Akash s/o. Prakashrao Rangari,
Aged 22 years, Occ.Student,
r/o.Gadgenagar, Beside Rathi
Hospital, Amravati.
At present : c/o. Sudhir Gawali,
r/o. Pimpri Kalgaon,
Tq. Ner, District Yavatmal. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone-I, District Amravati.
2. Assistant Police Commissioner,
Division Gadgenagar, District
Amravati.
3. Police Station Officer,
P.S., Gadgenagar, Amravati. .......... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:51:01 :::
2 wp970.17.odt
____________________________________________________________
Mr.P.V.Navlani, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs.M.H.Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
____________________________________________________________
*******
Date of reserving the Judgment : 20.11.2017.
Date of pronouncement of the Judgment : 24.11.2017.
*******
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. The Criminal Application is admitted and heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. Petitioner has challenged externment order passed by respondent no.1, u/s.57 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Petitioner is a student. He is residing at Gadge Nagar, Amravati. Respondent no.2 served a notice dt. 5.6.2017 upon him. By the said notice, respondent no.2, u/s. 57(a)(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act called upon the petitioner to file reply within seven days. Respondent no.2 in the said show cause notice gave a chart in which six offences ::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:51:01 ::: 3 wp970.17.odt were shown to be pending against him; out of which, in one crime, the petitioner has been convicted. Notice has further shown that offence at Sr. Nos. 2 to 6 are still pending.
3. Petitioner has filed his reply and submitted that, out of six offences which are shown as pending against him, he has been acquitted in offences at Sr.No.5 and 6 (Criminal Case Nos.1038 of 2014 and 1039 of 2014). He has further replied that Chapter cases are also closed against him. In the offence at Sr.No.1, he has been convicted and fine of Rs.2,000/- was imposed upon him. The said Judgment is challenged before the Sessions Court, Amravati.
4. The petitioner is only 22 years and he is still a student studying in Polytechnic 2nd Year. The trial Court has taken a good behaviour bond from the petitioner and has convicted him with a fine only. He has not committed any crime from the year 2014. Therefore, no question of creating fear in the minds of public by the petitioner.
5. It is submitted that respondent no.2 while passing the order has not taken into consideration reply filed by the petitioner. ::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:51:01 :::
4 wp970.17.odt At last, it is prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by respondent no.2.
6. Heard Mr.P.V.Navlani, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He has pointed out copy of Judgments filed on record in Criminal Case Nos. 1038 of 2014 and 1039 of 2014. Learned Counsel has submitted that, in the impugned order, those cases are shown pending against the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the Judgment in the case of Nitin @ Babloo s/o. Bhagwant Gade .vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati and Others reported in 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1549, it is clear that the respondent no.2 has not applied his mind while passing the impugned order.
7. Learned Counsel has submitted that since the year 2014 not a single crime is registered against the petitioner. There is no reference of any witness in the show cause notice or in the impugned order to show that the petitioner is creating any terror/fear in the minds of public. Therefore, it is clear that requirement of Section 57 of the Maharashtra Police Act is not fulfilled. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has relied on the decision in the ::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:51:01 ::: 5 wp970.17.odt case of Ratan Singh Ramsingh Rajput .vs. M. V. Chitale, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kalyan and another reported in 1986 Mh.L.J. 879.
8. Heard Mrs.M.H.Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. for Respondent/State. She has supported the impugned order.
9. Perused the show cause notice. In the show cause notice, six crimes/offences were shown pending against the petitioner. Petitioner replied the said show cause notice and pointed out that he is acquitted in two Criminal Cases nos. 1038 of 2014 and 1039 of 2014. From the perusal of the impugned order, both the cases are shown pending against the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that respondent no.2 has not applied his mind while passing the impugned order. Hence, in view of Larger Bench Judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.386 of 2016, Pankaj s/o. Bhallaji Atram .vs. State and Others, the order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
10. There is nothing in the impugned order to show that the petitioner is creating terror/fear in the minds of public and therefore, ::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:51:01 ::: 6 wp970.17.odt nobody is coming forward to give evidence. In-camera statements are not recorded. All the offences against the petitioner are of the year 2014. Preventive cases are closed. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that there is likelihood of committing similar offences by the petitioner.
11. In the case of Ratan Singh Ramsingh Rajput. (supra), this Court has held that "conviction for an offence as mentioned in the relevant clauses as also reason to believe that the proposed externee was likely to engage himself in commission of offence similar to that for which he is convicted, if necessary......Externing Authority has not stated of existence of material showing likelihood of similar offence being committed. Such information if existing has got to be indicated atleast in general nature in the notice served upon externee. Failure would vitiate the order of externment."
12. In the present case, show cause notice or impugned order does not show that there is every possibility of committing similar offences by the petitioner. From the perusal of show cause notice and the impugned order, it is clear that all the offences are of ::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:51:01 ::: 7 wp970.17.odt the year 2014. Hence, in view of the above cited Judgments, the impugned order is liable to quashed and set aside.
13. The petitioner has stated in his reply that he is studying in Polytechnic. He is aged about 22 years. In one of the criminal case, he is convicted by the Court and he is released on a bond of good behaviour as per provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The said conviction is also challenged before the Sessions Court. The material pointed out by the petitioner in his reply is not considered by respondent no.2. Hence, we allow the petition in terms of prayer clause (i) thereof.
The impugned order passed by respondent no2 dt. 7.9.2017 externing the petitioner for a period of six months from Amravati district is hereby quashed and set aside.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE [jaiswal] ::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:51:01 ::: 8 wp970.17.odt ::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:51:01 :::