Abdul Shoeb S/O. Abdul Rashid vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 927 Bom

                                                    1                  6-J-WP-34-18.odt

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

                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.34 OF 2018

 Abdul Shoeb s/o Abdul Rashid,
 Aged about : 30 years, Occ: Labour,
 R/o Jamil Colony, Amravati,
 Tah. And District - Amravati.                               ..... PETITIONER

                               ...V E R S U S...

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

 2. Assistant Commissioner of Police,
    Gadge Nagar Division, Amravati,
    Tah. and District - Amravati.

 3. Police Station Officer,
    P.S. Nagpuri Gate, Amravati,
    Tah. and District - Amravati.                            ... RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri P. V. Navlani, Advocate for the petitioner.
 Shri S.S.Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                CORAM:-    
                                            SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK &
                                             ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATED :

24/01/2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER SMT. VASANTI A NAIK , J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The criminal writ

petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the

learned counsel for the parties.

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of

his externment issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati

2 6-J-WP-34-18.odt

dated 12/12/2017 externing the petitioner from Amravati city and

Amravati rural areas for a period of two years.

Shri Navlani, the learned counsel for the petitioner states

that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind inasmuch

as the respondent-authority has wrongfully considered that three

offences under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Penal Code are pending

against the petitioner though the petitioner was acquitted in two

offences bearing Crime Nos.89/2010 and 46/2011. It is stated that

though only one offence under Section 160 of the Penal Code is

pending against the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner of Police has

wrongly taken into consideration three offences while externing the

petitioner for a period of two years. It is stated that had the Deputy

Commissioner considered that only one offence under Section 160 of

the Penal Code was pending against the petitioner, the impugned order

may not have been passed.

Shri Doifode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondents fairly admits that two offences bearing

Crime Nos.89/2010 and 46/2011 are not pending against the

petitioner. It is admitted that the petitioner is acquitted in the said

offences, as could be seen from the judgment annexed to the writ

petition. It is stated that though this fact is brought to the notice of the

Deputy Commissioner by the petitioner in the reply to the show cause

under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, it appears that it is

3 6-J-WP-34-18.odt

mistakenly mentioned in the impugned order that three offences are

pending against the petitioner.

In the circumstances of the case, the impugned order is

liable to be set aside as it suffers from non-application of mind of the

authority passing the impugned order. Only three offences were

registered against the petitioner and out of the three offences, the

petitioner was acquitted in Crime Nos.89/2010 and 46/2011. Only one

case in which the petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under

Section 160 of the Penal Code is pending against the petitioner. The

respondent - authority however passed the impugned order by

considering that three Court cases were pending against the petitioner

though the petitioner was acquitted in two cases. In the circumstances

of the case, since the Deputy Commissioner has not applied his mind to

the relevant facts of the case before passing the order of externment,

the externment order is liable to be set aside.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is

allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.

                      JUDGE                                           JUDGE


 Choulwar