Mr. Aslam S/O Jamshed Khan vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 990 Bom

                                                                                                                             13.cri.wp.631.2020.odt
                                                                                        1

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

                                       CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.631/2020



             Mr. Aslam s/o Jamshed Khan,
             aged about 32 years,
             Occupation - Plumber,
             R/o. Plot No. 131, Kale Lay out,
             Om Nagar, Taluka and District- Nagpur.                                                                  ..... PETITIONER


                                                                        // VERSUS //


             1.          State of Maharashtra,
                         Through its Secretary, Department
                         of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

             2.          Deputy Commissioner of Police,
                         Zone-V, Nagpur City, Nagpur.

             3.          Assistant Commissioner of Police,
                         Jaripatka Division, Nagpur City,
                         Nagpur.                                                                                 .... RESPONDENTS

             ------ ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------
                           Shri S. B. Tiwari, Advocate for petitioner
                           Mrs. H. Jaipurkar, 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.




                                                                        13.cri.wp.631.2020.odt


             2]                Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel

             appearing for the parties.


             3]                The petitioner by the impugned order passed on

31.10.2020 by respondent no.2 has been externed for a period

of one year from Nagpur city and also Nagpur district under

Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

Petitioner is aggrieved by this order and hence is before this

Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

impugned order displays non application of mind on the part of

respondent no.2 in as much as the offences which should not

have been considered and the factors which were relevant and

ought to have been considered have been ignored by the

respondent no.2. In support, he has invited our attention to the

offences listed at serial nos.6 to 11 in the show cause notice, all

of which either relate to those proceedings which have been

disposed of or in which the offences involved were beyond the

scope of Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act and some of the

offences in which, the petitioner was acquitted were not

considered appropriately by respondent no.2.

4] Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

except for the repeated expressions regarding the statements of

confidential witnesses, nothing more is mentioned in the

13.cri.wp.631.2020.odt

impugned order which shows that even the factor of opinion of

confidential witnesses has not been appropriately considered by

respondent no.2. In support, learned counsel relying upon the

cases of Abdul Wahab Vs. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate

Malegaon and another, reported in 1992 CRI. L. J. 326 and

Babulal s/o Pandharinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra

through Principal Secretary, Home Ministy, Mumbai and others,

Criminal Writ Petition No.741 of 2018 decided on 09/08/2018.

Learned APP submits that the impugned order is rightly passed

and there is no need to make any interference in the same.

5] We have carefully gone through the impugned

order. We have also gone through the original record of the

proceedings, produced before us for our perusal, which has now

been returned after its examination by us. We do not think that

any infirmity or error could be noticed in the impugned order.

6] There are criminal proceedings such as those which

are mentioned at serial nos.6 to 11 in the show cause notice and

also in the impugned order, which were disposed of or were the

once in which offences involved did not attract the provisions of

Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. But, majority of

these offences related to an offence punishable under Section

142 of Maharashtra Police Act which is an offence relating to

13.cri.wp.631.2020.odt

breach of an externment order. These criminal proceedings

involving Section 142 Maharashtra Police Act were lodged

against the petitioner almost every year from 2015 to 2017. In

the year 2015, there was one such offence pertaining to breach

of externment order. In the year 2016 there were two such

offences and in the year 2017 also there were two such offences.

All though, except for the criminal proceeding bearing No.3021

of 2017, others have been disposed of under Section 258 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, it would not mean that these

proceedings would have to be ignored for the reason that their

disposal has taken place not on merits but for some other

reasons which were not found to be conducive to keep it

pending with these proceedings. All though, the exact reason

for closure of the proceedings under Section 258 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure has not been stated by the respondent,

which appears to be a lapse on their part, it appears to us that

they must have been closed on account of the period of

externment having been over. In any case, the fact remains that

consistently since the year 2015 till 2017, the petitioner even

having been externed from a certain area, has defied all those

externment orders and that is the reason why he involved

himself consistently in these proceedings. They only indicate

13.cri.wp.631.2020.odt

the nature of the petitioner which appears to be quite

disrespectful to law. Such petitioner, in our view, would not

deserve any discretion of this Court to be exercised in his favour

and on this count alone, we are inclined to dismiss this petition.

7] Even otherwise, we find from the impugned order

that there is sufficient application of mind by the respondent

no.2 to the material available on record. Our perusal of the

original record of this case confirms this fact. There is available

on records, material which has been considered by respondent

no.2 and therefore, the subjective satisfaction which has been

reached in the present case cannot be said to be one which has

no connection whatsoever with the material available on record.

Once this fact is ascertained, this Court would have no

jurisdiction to further consider the question as to whether or not

the subjective satisfaction has been rightly or wrongly exercised.

Even the statements of confidential witnesses throw sufficient

light upon the activities and nature of the petitioner and

therefore, the conclusion drawn in that regard in the impugned

order cannot be said to be not supported by any material on

record. As such, we do not find that any assistance could be

sought by the petitioner from the case laws cited before us. In

the result, we find no merit in the petition. The Writ Petition

13.cri.wp.631.2020.odt

stands dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

                               JUDGE                             JUDGE


             Sarkate