BHAVANBHAI HARIBHAI ZALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.G.R.Manav for the petitioner and learned APP Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondent No.1 State.

(2.) Petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 28.3.2016 by the 3rd Addl.Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Criminal Revision Application No.60 of 2011 whereby Sessions Judge has confirmed the judgment and order dated 26.8.2011 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Muli in Criminal Case No.315 of 2010. By both such impugned judgments, both the Courts below have confirmed the conviction of the petitioner, thereby, the Court of J.M.F.C. has awarded S.I of six months and fine of Rs.2,000/- with condition that in default of payment of fine, he may have to undergo S.I for one year for committing offence u/s.142 of the Bombay Police Act.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.G.R.Manav has argued at length and vehemently submitted that petitioner is suffering from severe diabetes and because of his social and health problems in the family, he has no option, but to attend his family at the relevant time though there was an order of his externment by the competent authority and though such order was in force at the relevant time. Copy of such order is produced on record at page 42. The appeal preferred against such judgment and order dated 21.8.2009 in Externment Case No.9 of 2009 being Externment Appeal No.220 of 2009 was also dismissed by order dated 4.3.2010, copy of which is produced on record at pages 45 and 46. Therefore, it becomes clear that at the relevant time, there is effective order of externment of the petitioner from the territorial jurisdiction of entire Surendranagar District. If we peruse the impugned judgment by the trial Court, it becomes clear that on 8.10.2009 i.e. during the period of externment, petitioner was found on Muli Sayla by-pass road within the territorial limits of Surendranagar District. Therefore, the police has called upon two witnesses and drawn panchnama regarding identity of the petitioner when it was found that the petitioner has entered into the territorial limits of Surendranagar District, even after the order of externment, the chargesheet was filed before the competent Court. Pursuant to such chargesheet, petitioner was tried in Criminal Case No.315 of 2010 for committing offence u/s.142 of the Bombay Police Act. Prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses and produced several documentary evidence to prove its case and therefore, it cannot be said that there is any illegality or irregularity in such proceedings when otherwise offence is quite clear because petitioner was found in territorial limits of Surendranagar District though he was served with an order of externment and therefore, Magistrate has imposed sentence as recorded herein above.