MONTU JANGBAHADUR YADAV Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition the petitioner - externee challenges order dated 05.06.2018 passed by the externing authority - respondent no.3 herein externing the petitioner from Ahmedabad (Rural), Kheda, Mehsana and Gandhinagar for the objectionable activities carried on by the petitioner as also the order passed by the appellate authority dated 04.02.2019 whereby the externment order is modified to the extent that the contiguous districts from where the petitioner was externed that part of the externment order is quashed by the appellate authority. However, the order of externment is sustained by the appellate authority so far as it relates to Ahmedabad District, including the city area.

(2.) Shri Pawan Barot, learned advocate for Shri Sumit Sikarwar, learned advocate for the petitioner argued that the order passed by the externing authority suffers from non application of mind on the ground that two offences registered at Khadia Police Station has been narrated not only in the show cause notice but in the impugned order too. However, the case registered at Serial No.1 (page no.45) registered at Khadia Police Station is for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act. According to Shri Pawan Barot, learned advocate for the petitioner, the said case does not fall within any of the Chapters XII, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code as enumerated in Section 56(b) of the Gujarat Police Act, and therefore, the externing authority could not have considered that offence for arriving at a subjective satisfaction to extern the petitioner and if he has considered it, that reflects total non application of mind as he was not alive to the fact that the said case does not fall within Chapters XII, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code , and therefore, he could not have considered that case at all for passing an order of externment.

(3.) Shri Dharmesh Devnani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that in view of Section 56(b) of the Gujarat Police Act, even one offence and ten statement of secret witnesses are sufficient to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner. He has contended that even taking out one case where it does not fall within Chapters XII, XVI and XVII of Indian Penal Code it is of no damage to the action, as one case, which was very proximate in point of time alongwith statement of secret witnesses has been considered to contend that there is no delay even in passing an order, as from 28.01.2018 to 09.04.2018 the case was heard, and therefore, he contends that there is no delay in passing an order of externment. So far the contention of the petitioner that the defence of the externee is not considered, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the very fact that the representations made on those adjourned dates in between 28.01.2018 to 09.04.2018 may be construed as consideration of the defence of the externee, and therefore, he has requested not to interfere with the order of externment as also the order passed in Appeal confirming the externment order in part.