Bombay High Court
Akash S/O. Prakashrao Rangari vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police ... on 24 November, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
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
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.
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
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,
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
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]
8 wp970.17.odt
