Bombay High Court
Aslam Mohommad Kazi vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate And ... on 12 June, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
2023:BHC-AS:15531-DB
Gokhale 1 of 4 4-wp-3853-17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3853 OF 2017
Aslam Mohommad Kazi ..Petitioner
Versus
The Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors. ..Respondents
__________
Ms. Sayali Dhuru i/b. Kuldeep S. Patil for Petitioner.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for State/Respondent No.3.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 12 JUNE 2023
PC :
1. In this petition, Rule is issued on 06/10/2017 and at the
same time, the impugned externment order was stayed.
2. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated
04/08/2017 passed by the Respondent No.1 i.e. The Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Miraj Sub Division, Miraj; externing the
petitioner from the District of Sangli and Kolhapur for a period of
three months.
3. Heard Ms. Sayali Dhuru, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. Arfan Sait, learned APP for the
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 16:19:46 :::
2 of 4 4-wp-3853-17
State/Respondent No.3.
4. The Petitioner was served with two show cause notices
U/s.59 of the Maharashtra Police Act dated 12/05/2017 and
19/07/2017. Those Notices mention three registered offences; out
of which, two offences i.e. C.R.No.48 of 2014 and 98 of 2006
registered at Miraj City police station had resulted in the
Petitioner's acquittal. One offence registered at Mahatma Gandhi
Chowk police station vide C.R.No.18 of 2016 was pending. There
were two proceedings under section 107 of the Cr.p.c. at both
these police stations. It was mentioned in the show-cause notice
that, because of the Petitioner's nature, nobody was willing to
come forward to give complaint at the police station. After these
two show-cause notices, the Petitioner submitted his reply. After
considering all this material, the impugned externment order was
passed on 04/08/2017.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that,
though there is a reference to 'in camera' statements in the
impugned externment order, no such material is provided to the
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 16:19:46 :::
3 of 4 4-wp-3853-17
petitioner in either of the show-cause notices. She submitted that,
thus, the Petitioner was prevented from making effective
representation against the proposed action of externment. She
submitted that, the offences were stale and he was acquitted in
two offences and yet they were relied on the impugned
externment order.
6. Learned APP tried to support the impugned externment
order. He also referred to the order passed by the Appellate
authority in the Petitioner's Appeal U/s.60 of the said Act. The said
order was dated 02/09/2017. Learned APP relied on that order.
7. I have considered these submissions. The Petition
deserves to be allowed on the ground that the Petitioner was not
furnished with the basic minimum required details to enable him
to meet those allegations. The impugned externment order mentions
that the members of the public were not willing to come
forward to depose against the Petitioner and that subjective satisfaction
was based on the statements recorded 'in camera'. No such
statements, mentioning at least the basic material are provided to
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 16:19:46 :::
4 of 4 4-wp-3853-17
the Petitioner and, therefore, he was deprived of putting forth his
case before the externing authority. Therefore, on this ground
alone, the petition deserves to succeed.
8. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
(a) which reads thus:
"a) The impugned order of externment
dtd.04/08/2017 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Sub division Miraj and impugned Judgment and
order dtd.02/09/2017 passed by the Ld. Divisional
Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in externment
appeal No.176 of 2017 may be quashed and set
aside."
ii) The Petition is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
