Ravi S/O Naresh Gadge vs Satte Of Mah. Thr. Sub Divisional ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 989 Bom

                                                                                                                            14.cri.WP.684.2020.odt
                                                                                        1

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

                                       CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.684/2020



             Ravi S/o Naresh Gadge,
             Aged about 30 years,
             Occu: Labour work,
             R/o. Sanjay Nagar, Arvi,
             Tah. Arvi, Dist. Wardha.                                                                            ..... PETITIONER


                                                                        // VERSUS //


             1.          The State of Maharashtra,
                         Through Sub Divisional Magistrate,
                         Arvi, Dist. Wardha.

             2.          The State of Maharashtra
                         Through P.S.O. Arvi,
                         Dist. Wardha.                                                                           .... RESPONDENTS

             ------ ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------
                           Shri M. V. Rai, Advocate for petitioner
                           Mrs. T. Khan, APP for the respondents.
             - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



                                                          CORAM :                       SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                                                                        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED : 15/01/2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2] Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel

appearing for the parties.

14.cri.WP.684.2020.odt

3] The petitioner here challenges the order dated

05.11.2020 passed by respondent no.1 which externs him under

Section 56(1)(a) of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, from Wardha

district for a period of four months.

4] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

impugned order is the result of non-application of mind and has

no proximate relation with the object sought to be achieved in

this case for the reason that the last offence considered in this

case was committed quite long ago. He also submits that there

is no material on record to show that the movements or acts of

the petitioner are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger

or harm to person or property. This has been disagreed to by

the learned APP.

5] While it is true that the object sought to be

achieved by an externment order must have some nexus with

the material present on record, it should be invariably in the

nature of the conduct of the petitioner revealed by his

commission of offences over the period of time consistently. If a

person has criminal tendencies, and registration of offences

against him and pendency of various criminal cases against him

does not stop or discourage such a person from repeatedly

involving himself in criminal acts, the law enforcing agencies

14.cri.WP.684.2020.odt

have been given the power to extern such person from a

particular area, under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 so that

at least such person could be physically restrained from

repeating his criminal behaviour. It is for this reason, that the

law expects that the object sought to be achieved by an

externment order bears a reasonable relation with the criminal

activities of the person to be externed.

6] In the present case, it is found from the impugned

order that this petitioner has been indulging in criminal

behaviour consistently from the year 2016 till 2019. In the year

2016, there were two offences registered against him and in the

year 2017, there was registered against him one criminal

offence. All these three cases are pending in Courts. The show

cause notice was lastly issued on 11.07.2019 and by that time,

there was already registered against the petitioner one more

crime, crime No.72 of 2019, for offences punishable under

Sections 353, 341, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code. These offences, apart from being serious, were

alleged to be committed by the petitioner hardly a few months

before the issuance of the show cause notice. When commission

of these offeneces is read in the context of already pending

criminal cases against the petitioner since the year 2016, one

14.cri.WP.684.2020.odt

could reasonably find that the petitioner has been consistently

indulging in commission of some or other criminal act. It is

also admitted fact that the petitioner was subjected thrice to

externment proceedings and it appears to us that such

externment action was taken against him on all those occasions.

This is evident from the admission given by the petitioner and

recorded in the impugned order. So, this is a factor, which

additionally speaks about the incalcitrant nature of the

petitioner and one can say that even previous externments have

not been able to dissuade him from continuing with this

criminal behaviour. Such material which is present on record

and which has been appropriately considered by the respondent

no.2 would unable us to reach a conclusion that movements and

acts of the petitioner have been causing alarm and danger to

personal property and therefore, no error could be found in the

impugned order.

7] Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed his

reliance upon the cases of Sheikh Dastagir s/o Sk. Chand Vs.

State of Maharashtra and others, 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 171,

Sudhakar s/o Mahadeorao Khelkar Vs. The State of

Maharashtra and others, 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1706 and Kishor

Rambhaoji Narad Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ,

14.cri.WP.684.2020.odt

2017 ALL MR (Cri) 4898 in order to support his argument that

there is no reasonable relation between the object of the

externment order and the material present on record. We beg

to differ with the opinion of the learned counsel for the

petitioner. In the cases of Sheikh Dastagir s/o Sk. Chand

(supra), Sudhakar s/o Mahadeorao Khelkar (supra), the last

offences were committed about 15 months and 7 months

respectively before the issuance of the show cause notices in

those proceedings, which is not the case here. We have already

noted that the last of the offences alleged against the petitioner

was committed within a few months before issuance of the show

cause notice. In the case of Kishor Rambhaoji Narad (supra),

the externment order that was passed was under Section 56(1)

(b) of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, unlike the one passed here

under Section 56(1)(a) of the said Act. All these cases on

which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the

petitioner thus are distinguishable on facts and therefore, in our

humble opinion, they render no assistance to the case of the

petitioner here.

8] For these reasons, we are not inclined to interfere

with the impugned order.

                                                                      14.cri.WP.684.2020.odt


             9]        The Writ Petition stands dismissed.


                       Rule is discharged.




                               JUDGE                                JUDGE


             Sarkate