Bombay High Court
Sudam Sahebrao Kajale vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 25 March, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
{1}
crwp123221.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1232 OF 2021
Sudam s/o Sahebrao Kajale,
age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Jogeshwari, Tal. Gangapur,
District Aurangabad. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through : Principal Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Paithan Gate, Aurangabad,
Tal. and District Aurangabad.
03 The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad. Respondents
Mr. D. J. Choudhary, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K. S. Patil, A. P. P. for Respondents.
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 10th March, 2022.
PRONOUNCED ON: 25th March, 2022.
JUDGMENT (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
{2}
crwp123221.odt
2 This Criminal Writ Petition is directed against the
impugned orders dated 17.05.23021 and 29.07.2021, passed by
present Respondents No.2 and 3, respectively, whereby the
petitioner has been externed from the area of MIDC Waluj Police
Station, Aurangabad, for the period of two years.
3 Background facts of the case are as under:
The petitioner is an agriculturist by profession and
resident of village Jogeshwari, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad.
His main source of income is agriculture. However, the Assistant
Police Commissioner, Aurangabad, on 28.01.2021, issued show
cause notice to him under the provisions of Section 59 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (herein after referred to as "the Act"),
mentioning that since four crimes were registered against him, his
presence was found dangerous to the public at large. As such, he
was asked, as to why he should not be removed from Aurangabad
district for two years. The petitioner thereafter replied the show
cause notice and claimed that he has been involved in the alleged
crimes falsely. According to him, since he had contested the
election of Village Panchayat against the complainants, he was
involved therein falsely out of political revenge.
{3}
crwp123221.odt
However, under the order dated 17.05.2021, Respondent No.2, i.e.
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad, by ignoring the
defence of the petitioner, externed him from the area of Police
Station MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad, for two years.
4 The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 60 of
the Act, before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division,
Aurangabad, i.e. present Respondent No.3. However, Respondent
No.3 has also not considered say of the petitioner so also the
grounds raised in the appeal and vide order dated 29.07.2021,
confirmed the order of externment.
5 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
crimes mentioned in the notice issued against the petitioner were
registered only because he has contested the election of village
panchayat, Jogeshwari against the complainants in those cases..
The learned Counsel further submits that both the authorities
below have failed to appreciate the grounds raised by the petitioner
in his say, as to how he is not liable to be externed. It is further
submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has
already been acquitted in first two crimes bearing RCC No.
343/2020 and 587/2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
{4}
crwp123221.odt
Class, Gangapur, under the orders dated 04.08.2021 and
05.08.2021, respectively. It is further submitted that rest of the
two crimes bearing Crime No. 161/2019 and 82/2020 are
registered under Section 65 (kh) of the Maharashtra Prohibition
Act, 1949 and thus not related to property or public at large. As
such, on the basis of those two crimes, being private in nature, the
petitioner cannot be externed.
6 Besides the oral submissions, learned Counsel for the
petitioner has also relied upon following judgments:
(i) Karan Ramesh Ghuge Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-
II, Nashik & others, reported in 2013 (4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 90;
(ii) Hanuman Rajaram Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra,
reported in 2013 (2) Mh. L. J. (Cri.) 683; and
(iii) Hari Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in
1987 (3) Crimes (Bom.) 605.
7 On the contrary, on the basis of the affidavit-in-reply
filed on behalf of Respondents, learned A. P. P. has strongly
{5}
crwp123221.odt
opposed the petition on the ground that serious crimes are
registered against the petitioner involving offences against human
body as well as offences involving illegal sale of liquor. Besides,
there are confidential statements of the witnesses wherein it is
mentioned that the petitioner is involved in criminal acts of
threatening to the public at large and robbery, etc. As such,
learned A. P. P. prays for dismissal of the petition.
7 On perusal of the show cause notice dated 28.01.2021,
issued by the Assistant Police Commissioner, Aurangabad, it is
evident that following crimes have been registered against the
petitioner:
Sr. Police Station Crime No./Sections Charge Present
No. sheet/Court status
Case No.
01 MIDC, Waluj Crime No. 245/2020 - Charge sheet Pending
Sections 324, 323, 504, No.259/2020
506/34 of the IPC dated
23.09.2020
02 MIDC, Waluj Crime No. 348/2020, Court Case No. Pending
Sections 324, 504, 587/2020 dated
506/34 of the IPC 10.10.2018
03 MIDC, Waluj Crime No.161/2019, Charge Sheet Pending
Section 65 (Kh) No.81/2020
Maharashtra dated
Prohibition Act. 04.09.2019
04 MIDC, Waluj Crime No.08/2020 Charge Sheet Pending
Section 65 (kh), No. 05/2020,
Maharashtra dated
Prohibition Act. 25.02.2020
{6}
crwp123221.odt
8 In addition to that, preventive action has also been
taken against the petitioner in MIDC Waluj Police Station vide
Chapter Case No. 90/2020 under Section 107 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
9 It appears from the offences registered against the
petitioner under the Sections of Indian Penal Code, that the
petitioner is involved in the crimes relating to human body and the
complainants and witnesses in those crimes are injured at the
hands of the present petitioner. Other two offences are relating to
illegal sale of country liquor by the petitioner. Further, it also
appears that the petitioner has been involved in deterrent criminal
activities, such as abusing, beating and giving threats under the
point of dangerous weapons to the public at large. Moreover, it has
also been found that the petitioner often commits robbery by
snatching valuable amounts from the people. It is also apparent
that nobody from the common people is willing to come forward to
lodge a complaint against the petitioner. There are also in-camera
statements of confidential witnesses wherein criminal deterrent
activities of the petitioner are mentioned.
10 It appears that the externment of the petitioner is
{7}
crwp123221.odt
under Section 56 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act, which reads as under:
56. Removal of persons about to commit
offences:
(1) Whenever it shall appear in Greater
Bombay and other areas for which a Commissioner
has been appointed under Section 7 to the
Commissioner and in other area or areas to which
the State Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this
Section, to the District Magistrate, or the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate empowered by the State
Government in that behalf-
(a) that the movements or acts of
any person are causing or calculated to cause
alarm, danger or harm to person or property or
(b) that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that such person is engaged or
is about to be engaged in the commission of an
offence involving force or violence or any offence
punishable under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the
Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such
offence and when in the opinion of such officer
witnesses are not willing to come forward to give
evidence in public against such person by reason of
apprehension on their part as regards the safety of
their person or property, or
{8}
crwp123221.odt
11 On going through the aforesaid provisions, it appears
that the said Section provides externment of persons about to
commit offences or persons convicted of certain offences. The
object underlying these provisions is to protect the locality or
contiguous areas or districts from a probable danger of
commission of offences by the externees.
12 In the instant case, learned Counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon afore-mentioned cases. In the judgment in the
case of Karan Ramesh Ghuge Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Zone-II, Nashik & others, reported in 2013 (4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 90,
this Court has observed that the externment order was liable to be
set aside as it was found that contents of the show cause notice
were not sufficient enough and besides the offences, there was no
additional material produced against the externee to prove that he
was likely to get engaged in the offences for which he was convicted
earlier. However, the facts of this case are different.
13 In the next judgment, in the case of Hanuman
Rajaram Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2013 (2) Mh.
L. J. (Cri.) 683, this Court has quashed the externment order
mainly on the ground that no opportunity was given to the
{9}
crwp123221.odt
petitioner therein to explain the alleged charges against him and
that the petitioner did not misuse his bail order and also that the
petitioner was sought to be externed even from the area where no
offences were registered against him. However, this is not the case
in the instant matter, since sufficient opportunity has been given
to the petitioner to raise grounds to challenge the accusations
made against him in the show cause notice.
14 The last judgment, relied upon by learned Counsel for
the petitioner, is in the case of Hari Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra
& others, reported in 1987 (3) Crimes (Bom.) 605, wherein the
externment order was set aside mainly because the authority has
relied upon additional material which was not the subject matter of
the show cause notice. However, this judgment is also not
applicable to the instant case since no such contingency is there in
the instant case.
15 The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
argued that the petitioner is already acquitted from the first two
crimes mentioned herein above by the concerned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class and, therefore, rest of the two crimes,
which are only under the provisions of Maharashtra Prohibition
{10}
crwp123221.odt
Act, cannot be used for externment of the petitioner since those
cases are of private nature and not related to public at large.
However, though the petitioner has been acquitted from the
aforesaid first two crimes, but on perusal of the material on record,
it is clearly evident that such acquittal of the petitioner has been
recorded by the concerned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, mainly
because the complainant and the witnesses refused to support the
prosecution. Therefore, there was no proper evaluation of the
allegations made against the petitioner. On the contrary, the
material on record indicates that despite registration of first crime,
the petitioner has involved himself again in the criminal activities
dangerous to the public at large. Moreover, there are also in-
camera statements indicating as to how the petitioner is involved in
the crimes relating to abusing, beating, snatching of valuable
amounts and possessing dangerous weapons like knife.
16 Moreover, on perusal of the impugned orders, it further
appears that the concerned authorities have properly gone through
the entire material on record against the petitioner and with their
subjective satisfaction, came to the conclusion that presence of
the petitioner, in the said area, is dangerous to the public at large
and, therefore, passed order of his externment. It further appears
{11}
crwp123221.odt
that there is live-link between the last crime committed by the
petitioner and submission of proposal for externment under the
show cause notice dated 28.01.2021 and, therefore, it is not the
case that old crimes are considered for externment of the
petitioner. It is extremely important to note that the show cause
notice speaks about the externment of the petitioner from entire
Aurangabad district, but the impugned orders then indicate that
both the authorities, by applying mind, have come to the
conclusion that the petitioner is liable to externed only from the
jurisdiction of MIDC Waluj Police Station. Therefore, the impugned
orders cannot be said to be excessive in nature. There is sufficient
material on record to indicate as to how presence of the petitioner,
in the said area, is dangerous to the public at large.
17 As such, considering all these aspects, we are of the
opinion that both the authorities have passed the impugned orders
with their subjective satisfaction by proper application of mind and
by rightly appreciating the material on record. As such, no
interference is required in the impugned orders.
18 Hence, we pass the following order:
{12}
crwp123221.odt
(i) Criminal Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.
(ii) Rule stands discharged.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) (V. K. JADHAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
adb
