PANDURANG BHAGURAM RUKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of externment dated 9-9-96 annexed as Exhibit "e" to the petition.

(2.) THE impugned order of externment was passed directing the petitioner not to enter the areas of Dharavi, Matunga, Antop Hill, Kurla, Mahim and Kherwadi Police Station in Mumbai for a period of six months. He was directed to leave the said areas within 48 hours from the receipt of the order and it further directed him to report to the local police station every Sunday till completion of a period of three months from the date of the order. THE petitioner was further directed by the impugned order to report to the Senior Inspector of Police, Dharavi Police Station on the expiry of a period of six months and thereafter to report to the Externment Officer, Dharavi on every Sunday for a period of one year from the date of the original order dated 9/9/96. After the service of the aforesaid order the petitioner had preferred an appeal dated 5/10/96 before the Appellate Authority i. e. the Government of Maharashtra under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act. THE appeal was heard on 20/10/96 and was rejected by the order dated 25/10/96. THEreafter the present petition was filed in this Court on 13th December 1997 challenging the order of externment as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority on various grounds. After filing of this petition the same was admitted and rule was issued on 17/12/96 and interim order was granted staying the externment order on condition that the petitioner reports to Dharavi Police Station once in a week on every Monday between 10 a. m. to 8 p. m. After filing of this petition no return has been filed on behalf of the State. Out of the period of externment of six months it appears that the petitioner had complied with the said order and stayed outside for a period of three months from the date of the order till externment order was stayed by this Court on 17/12/96. Today when the matter has reached for hearing more than three years have passed from the date of the passing of the order. No grievance is made on behalf of the State that there was non-compliance with the original order of externment or the condition imposed by this Court while staying the order of externment and admitting this petition.

(3.) IT is further contended by Mrs. Pandit that this solitary case was registered in January 1994 and the show cause notice was issued on 15th May 1996 i. e. after a period of 2 and 1/2 years. The other instances relied against the petitioner are one N. C. complaint dated 20th February 1996 and the in-camera statements. Mrs. Pandit took me through the in-camera statements and points out that the particulars of the period and time when the alleged offences were committed are not specifically given and, therefore, no credence can be given to the in-camera statements. Besides the above, I find from the order of the Appellate Authority that the Chapter Proceedings under Section 110 (d) and (g) of Cr. P. C. were also initiated against the petitioner in respect of which the bond was executed by the petitioner under the orders of the Magistrate. If the bond was executed by the petitioner for good behaviour, there was hardly any necessity for issuing the impugned order of externment against the petitioner.