Kishor Sudhakar Khadse vs The Police Station Officer, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 955 Bom

                                 1                             wp77.17.odt




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR



                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.77 OF 2017



  Kishor Sudhakar Khadse,
  Aged about 28 years, Occ. Private,
  r/o. Adarsh Nehru Nagar, 
  P.S.Frezerpura, Amravati.                 ..........      PETITIONER



          // VERSUS //



  1. State of Maharashtra,
      Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
      Amravati.

  2. The Police Station Officer,
      Police Station, Frezarpura,
      Distt. Amravati.

  3. Divisional Commissioner,
      Amravati Division,
      Amravati.                                   ..........       RESPONDENTS




::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 00:57:34 :::
                                         2                               wp77.17.odt

  ____________________________________________________________  
               Mr.Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                  Mr.T.A.Mirza, A.P.P. for the Respondents
  ____________________________________________________________



                                         CORAM     :  B.R. GAVAI 
                                                      AND
                                                      KUM.INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

DATE : 22.3.2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. GAVAI, J) :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by

consent.

2. The petitioner challenges the order dt.5.10.2016 passed

under the provisions of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra

Police Act, 1951 thereby externing the petitioner from the areas of

Police Commissioner, Amravati as well as Amravati District (Rural)

for a period of one year.

3. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of

three crimes registered against the petitioner as well as two in-

3 wp77.17.odt

camera statements recorded by the Externing Authority. Perusal of

the show cause notice as well as the impugned order would reveal

that the show cause notice as well as the impugned order refers to

the following aspects :

"with great efforts, the Police Inspector, Police Station, Frezerpura has taken into confidence the witnesses and assured them that their names would be kept secret and that they would not be required to give evidence before the Court and thereafter, after giving these assurances, their in-camera statements have been recorded.

4. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kishor

Rajaram Durge .vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police and Others

reported in 2004 (Suppl) Bom.C.R. 481 has observed thus :

"7.A perusal of the show cause notice shows that the incamera statement of witness 'A' was recorded which indicated that the witness has stated that the petitioner had assaulted the witness on a trifle reason, about one year ago, that about three months ago, the petitioner had demanded money from him and had threatened to beat him if the money was not paid.

4 wp77.17.odt

However, bare perusal of these statements would indicate that there is no mention as to the place, date, time, etc. when the incident alleged to have occurred. There is also no mention of exact date, month and year. The mention is only about one year ago. Apart from this, there is not mention of any specific place, where these incidents occurred.

As regards the in-camera statement of witness 'B', the witness has stated that the incident occurred about six months ago, when he was threatened by the petitioner to give money. Here again, there is no mention as to place, date, time and months of the incident. Thus, it is clear that the in-camera statements of the two witnesses, which are mentioned in the show cause notice, are vague allegations, without giving any definite details as to the incident and thereby the petitioner was deprived of meeting out those allegations made against him. "

5. We find that the present case is the worst case than the

one (supra) which was under consideration before the Apex Court.

Here, in the present case, what is stated is that only in-camera

statements of two witnesses are recorded. But what has been stated

by two witnesses in their statements is also not reflected in the show

cause notice. In that view of the matter, we find that the entire

5 wp77.17.odt

proceedings are vitiated by non-application of mind. The impugned

order and the entire proceedings suffer from non-application of mind.

The petition deserves to be allowed on this short ground. Rule is,

therefore, made absolute by quashing and setting aside the impugned

order.

No order as to costs.

                             JUDGE                   JUDGE
   



  [jaiswal]





                                6                wp77.17.odt