Nazakat Ali S/O. Yunus Ali vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Sub ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8822 Bom

                                           1                                      jg.wp 905.17.odt

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

                    Criminal Writ Petition No. 905 of 2017

Petitioner :                            Nazakat Ali s/o Yunus Ali,
                                         Aged about 40 years, 
                                         Occ. : Agriculturist,
                                         R/o. Sawara, Tah. Akot, 
                                         District - Akola. 

                                             //  Versus //

Respondents :                      (1)  State of Maharashtra,
                                          Through Sub Divisional Police Officer, 
                                          Tah. Akot, District - Akola. 

                                   (2)  Sub Divisional Officer, Akot, 
                                          Tah. Akot, District - Akola.
  
 Shri S. I. Jagirdar, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri N. S. Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents


                                       CORAM      :  R. K. DESHPANDE AND
                                                       M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

Date of reserving the judgment : 14/11/2017.

Date of pronouncing the judgment : 17/11/2017.

Judgment (Per : M.G. Giratkar, J)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order of externment dated 2-8-2017 by which he is externed

from Akola District for a period of one year.

.....2/-

2 jg.wp 905.17.odt

3. It is submitted that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen. He

is only earning member of his family. He was not given any opportunity

of hearing by the respondent no. 2 before passing the impugned order.

4. It is submitted that show cause notice was issued on

8-8-2015 and certain charges/allegations were levelled against the

petitioner. The petitioner is acquitted from the offences which were

shown in the notice dated 8-8-2015 except one case is pending against

him. The respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order without

application of any mind. There was no any opportunity for the petitioner

to rebut the allegations in the notice as reference of witnesses are made,

no specific allegations stated by the witnesses are mentioned in the

notice. At last, it is prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order.

5. Heard learned counsel Shri Jagirdar for the petitioner. He

has submitted that the petitioner is acquitted in all the cases shown in

the impugned order except one case which is pending against him. The

copies of judgments are filed with the petition.

6. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Rao for the

respondents. He has supported the impugned order.

7. Perused the impugned order. From perusal of the impugned

.....3/-

3 jg.wp 905.17.odt

order, allegations against the petitioner stated by the witnesses were not

mentioned in the show cause notice, therefore, there was no opportunity

to the petitioner to rebut the allegations in his reply.

8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin @

Babloo s/o Bhagwant Gade Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police,

Amravati and ors. reported in 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1549 held that show

cause notice wrongly referred to a criminal case as pending against

petitioner and the petitioner was already acquitted in said case, non

consideration of acquittal of petitioner vitiate subjective satisfaction.

Further, decision of externment was based on two in-camera statements.

However, show cause notice did not refer to any such statement.

Material which was not disclosed in show cause notice cannot be relied

upon to order externment.

9. In the present case, the petitioner is acquitted by the Court in

near about all the cases and only one case is pending against him. This

factor was not considered by the respondent no. 2 while passing the

impugned order. From perusal of show cause notice, it is clear that it did

not refer to any in-camera statement of the witnesses, therefore, it cannot

be relied upon to order externment. In view of cited judgment,

impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we pass the

.....4/-

                                       4                                      jg.wp 905.17.odt

following order :



         (i)  Writ petition is allowed. 

(ii) The impugned order of externment dated 2-8-2017 passed by

the respondent no. 2 is hereby quashed and set aside.

10. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

                       JUDGE                                 JUDGE


wasnik




                                                                                     ...../-