Bombay High Court
Sevak Singh S/O Gurmukh Singh Juni vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Sub ... on 24 March, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Bharat Pandurang Deshpande
Judgment wp69.23
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 69/2023.
Sevak Singh s/o Gurmukh Singh Juni,
Aged 42 years, Occupation -
Labour, resident of Wadner,
Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha. ... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1.The State of Maharashtra,
through Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Hinganghat, Wardha.
2.The Police Inspector,
Police Station Wadner,
Wadner. ... RESPONDENTS.
---------------------------------
Mr. R.S. Renu, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. N.R.Rode, A.P.P. for Respondents/State.
----------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 24, 2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is
Rgd.
Judgment wp69.23
heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the
parties.
2. The petitioner has been externed from entire Wardha
District for a period of 6 months vide impugned order dated
08.12.2022, passed by respondent no.1 - Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Hinganghat, District Wardha. The action has been taken under
Section 56[1][a] and [b] of the Maharashtra Police Act.
3. The petitioner has inter-alia challenged the impugned
action on the ground that the externment order is solely based on
prior offence registered against him under the provisions of
Maharashtra Prohibition Act. He would submit that the authorities
have not recorded their subjective satisfaction that the activities of
the petitioner causes an alarm, danger or harm to a person or
property. Moreover, it is submitted that the prior offence does not
fall under Chapter XII, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, and
therefore, the entire action is illegal.
Rgd.
Judgment wp69.23
4. The learned A.P.P. has filed reply-affidavit on behalf of
respondents. It is stated that the petitioner was continuously selling
liquor in the prohibited area. Preventive action was taken against
him, however, he was indulging into similar activities, and therefore,
the externment order is well founded.
5. The impugned order bears a chart indicating 9 prior
offences registered within a span from 12.01.2019 to 08.07.2021
pertaining to the offence punishable under Sections 65E and 77A of
the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. True, one isolated offence has been
registered under Section 354 [a] of the Indian Penal Code.
However the entire action is based on the offences registered under
the Maharashtra Prohibition Act.
6. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner
was indulging into sale of illicit liquor in the prohibited area, which
caused a concern for taking action. There is no satisfaction about the
need of externment on account of offence registered under Section
354 [a] of the Indian Penal Code. Time and again in several
Rgd.
Judgment wp69.23
decisions this Court has observed that the action of externment
cannot be based primely on the ground of offences registered under
the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. Apart from that, there does not
appear to be any live link in between the last offence and the
impugned action in the matter. In the circumstances, the impugned
order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
7. In view of above discussion, Criminal Writ Petition is
allowed. The impugned order of externment passed by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Hinganghat dated 08.12.2022 is hereby
quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms
with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
