Amar S/O. Vijay Gudadhe vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6864 Bom

                                 1                          wp819.17.odt




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR



                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.819 OF 2017



  Amar s/o. Vijay Gudadhe,
  Aged 31 years, Occ. Labour,
  r/o. Near Congress Nagar, 
  Chaprashipura, Amravati, 
  At present : r/o. c/o. Dinesh 
  Shankarrao Patil, at post Bhaipur,
  Tq. Arvi, Distt. Wardha.                       ..........      PETITIONER


          // VERSUS //


  1) Deputy Commissioner of Police,
       Zone-I, District Amravati.

  2) Assistant Police Commissioner,
       Division Frezarpura, Distt.
       Amravati.

  3)  Police Station Officer,
       P.S. Frezarpura, Amravati.                     ..........    RESPONDENTS




::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2017 02:27:08 :::
                                     2                              wp819.17.odt

  ____________________________________________________________  
               Mr.P.V.Navlani, Advocate for the Petitioner.
      Mr.A.M.Deshpande, A.P.P. for the Respondents 1 to 3/State.
  ____________________________________________________________


                                    CORAM     :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK
                                                       AND
                                                       M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATED : 6th September, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J) :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

By this Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges

the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati City,

dt.29.7.2017 externing the petitioner from Amravati City and Rural

areas for two years.

Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

there is nothing in the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police,

Amravati City to show that the Deputy Commissioner was satisfied

while passing the order of externment u/s.57(1)(a)(v) of the

Maharashtra Police Act that the petitioner was again likely to commit

the offence punishable under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling

3 wp819.17.odt

Act, for which he was convicted. It is stated that, on a reading of the

provisions of Section 57 of the Act, it is clear that the order of

externment could be passed under the said provision only if the

Competent Authority has a reason to believe that the person, that is

sought to be externed, is likely to again engage himself in the

commission of an offence similar to that for which he was convicted.

Mr.A.M.Deshpande, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondents does not dispute that the

offences are registered against the petitioner only under the

provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 and he is

convicted in two such offences. It is, however, fairly admitted that it

does not appear from the impugned order that a finding is recorded

by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati that he has a reason

to believe that the petitioner is likely to again engage himself in the

commission of the offence punishable under the Bombay Prevention

of Gambling Act.

We have perused the provisions of Section 57 of the

Maharashtra Police Act as also the impugned order. It is apparent

from the provisions of Section 57 of the Act that a person could be

externed under the said provision if the Authority competent to

extern the person has a reason to believe that such person is likely to

4 wp819.17.odt

again engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to the

offence for which he was convicted. The petitioner is admittedly

convicted only for the offence punishable under the Bombay

Prevention of Gambling Act and no other Act. If that be so, unless,

the Deputy Commissioner of Police has a reason to believe that the

petitioner is likely to again engage himself in the commission of the

offence under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, he could not

have passed the order of externment. Since the impugned order of

externment depicts non-application of mind, the same is liable to be

set aside.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is

allowed. The impugned order dt.29.7.2017 is hereby quashed and

set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no

order as to costs.

                             JUDGE                                 JUDGE
   

  [jaiswal]





                                5               wp819.17.odt