Madhya Pradesh High Court

Raees vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 July, 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16784

1 CRR-1764-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1764 of 2025
RAEES
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Amar Singh Rathore - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Hemant Sharma - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Reserved on:- 26.06.2025.
Delivered on:- 04.07.2025.
................................................................................................................................................................
ORDER

With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the revision is heard finally at admission stage.

2. This Criminal Revision under Section 438 r/w 442 of the BNSS, 2023 is preferred challenging the illegality of order dated 13.03.2025 in Criminal Appeal

No.393/2023 by the XXVth Additional Session Judge, Indore arising out of judgment dated 01.12.2023 in RCT No.4534527/2015 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 14 of the

Madhya Pradesh State Security Act, 1990 and has been sentenced to 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation of 15 days additional imprisonment.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that the revision petitioner was prosecuted under Section 14 of the Madhya Pradesh State Security Act, 1990 for contravention of direction under Section 5(a)(b) of Madhya Pradesh State Security Act, 1990 vide order dated 07.02.2015 in Case No.52/Externment/Re/15 by the District Magistrate, Indore whereby the petitioner was directed to leave the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16784

2 CRR-1764-2025 boundaries of District Indore and adjoining districts of Ujjain, Dewas, Dhar, Khargone and Khandwa by entering into the boundary and remaining present on 13.07.2015 at his house situated at Juna Risala, Indore and regarding which Crime No.266/2015 was registered at Police Station Sadar Bazar, Indore.

4. On charges, the revision petitioner abjured the guilt and claimed for trial pleading innocence.

5. To bring home the guilt, the prosecution examined Balram @ Pappu as PW-1, Rajesh Upadhyay, Constable as PW-2, Kamal Singh (No.1707) Constable as PW-3, Virendra, Reader to Collector, Indore as PW-4 and Sub-Inspector S.K. Shukla as PW-5.

6. In examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the applicant/accused denied all the facts and circumstances appeared against him and

pleaded that he did not violated any direction and did not enter in the limits of District Indore. He was arrested from Jaora. He examined Abdul Rehman S/o Nirale Miya, R/o H.No.11, Ward No.6, Khatripura, Jaora, District Ratlam as DW-

7. Appreciating the evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment and appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

8. Challenging the conviction and sentence, this revision has been preferred on the ground that both the courts failed to appreciate the significant contradictions and omissions in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution failed to establish that the petitioner was ever served with or had knowledge of the externment order in question. The Rojnamcha entry (Exhibit-D/1) does not record any information regarding receipt of the notice pertaining to the externment order. No witness has stated that the revision

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16784

3 CRR-1764-2025

petitioner was arrested at Indore. On the contrary, defence witness (DW-1) has specifically mentioned that the revision petitioner was arrested from Jaora, District Ratlam. The arrest memo (Exhibit-P/5) does not reflect the place of arrest.

Heard.

9. Learned Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the revision petition and submitted that no illegality has been committed. It is also argued that the sentence also does not require interference as the petitioner is active in criminal activities even after the order of externment.

Perused the record.

10. The constable Kamal Singh (No.1707) PW-3 has specifically stated that he served the order of externment (Exhibit-P/3-C) on revision petitioner on 26.03.2015. It is not the explanation of the petitioner in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that he was not served the notice of externment. His explantion is that he was arrested from Jaora, District Ratlam.

11. Para No.8 of the arrest memo (Exhibit-P/1) specifically mentioned that he was arrested at 18:45 of 17.07.2015 from 62/1 Juna Risala, Indore. The cross- examination of Abdul Rehman (DW-1) reflects that his version is not trustworthy that the revision petitioner was arrested from Jaora, District Ratlam. Accordingly, there is no illegality in the conviction of revision petitioner under Section 14 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 for violating the direction (Exhibit-P/3- C) issued under Section 5(a)(b) of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.

Now, come to the sentence -

12. As per Section 14 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, the offence is punishable as below:-

"14. Penalty for contravention of directions under Section 3, 4, 5,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16784

4 CRR-1764-2025 6 or 13.

- If any person opposes or disobeys or fails to confirm to any direction issued under Section 3, 4, 5, 6 or 13 or abets opposition to or disobedience of any such direction he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years but shall not, except for reasons to be recorded in writing, be less than four months, and shall also be liable to fine."

13. The report submitted by Police Station - Sadar Bazar, Indore discloses that total 35 offences have been registered against the revision petitioner and 8 offences have been registered after the order of externment and arrest in this case. It discloses that the revision petitioner is active in criminal activities. Accordingly sentence of 2 years imprisonment is proper and does not call for interference. Hence, this revision petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.

(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE