Shri. Amit S/O. Ramlal Biriya vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9734 Bom

                                 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

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

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

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]





                                6             wp1034.17.odt