Prafulla S/O. Vitthalrao ... vs The Sub Divisional Police Officer ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9862 Bom

                                                1              criwp1057.17.odt

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1057 OF 2017


            Prafulla Vitthalrao Dapurkar,
            aged about 24 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
            R/o. Zenda Chowk, Ner Pinglai,
            Tq. Morshi, Distt. Amravati   .......                            PETITIONER

                                 ...VERSUS...

 1]         The Sub Divisional Police Officer,
            Morshi, Tq. Morshi, Distt. Amravati.

 2]         Sub Divisional Magistrate/Officer,
            Morshi, Tq. Morshi, Distt. Amravati.  ......        RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri P.R.Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner.
 Shri S.S.Doifode, APP for respondents State
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE AND
                                        M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
                                          th
                           Date      : 20     DECEMBER, 2017 .

 JUDGMENT (P.C.)

Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2] The order of externment for a period of two years

from the Municipal limits of District Amravati passed on

13.10.2017 is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

                                                2             criwp1057.17.odt

          3]               The order of externment is passed in exercise of

the powers conferred under Section 56(1)(b) of the

Maharashtra Police Act. One of the necessary ingredients of

Section 56(1)(b) is that the authorities must form an opinion

that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give

evidence in public against such person by receiving an

apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their

person or property. The requirement is mandatory. This is

not found in the order. We do not find any material on

record to substantiate this part of the provision. Except

stating the prosecution pending against the petitioner in

different Courts for different offences and the orders of

prohibitory nature passed against the petitioner, we do not

find the live link to substantiate the order of externment.

4] Though, in the order no reference is made to in-

camera statement said to have been recorded, in the reply

filed by the respondents in response to the present petition,

reference is made to it. No opportunity was provided to the

petitioner to respond the allegations in the show cause

notice. Apart from this, the petitioner was acquitted in crime

No. 81 of 2007 under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, but

3 criwp1057.17.odt

the order impugned show that the proceeding is pending.

5] In view of aforesaid position, it is not possible for

us to sustain the order of externment and the petition needs

to be allowed.

6] In the result, writ petition is allowed. The order

of externment passed on 13.10.2017 by the respondent No.2

is hereby quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to

costs.

                                JUDGE                       JUDGE

 Rvjalit