ABDUL KADIR RAZZAQUE BEG Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Writ Petition is directed against an order of externment dated 31-3-1990 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nasik Sub-Division Nasik, under which the petitioner was externed from the limits of Nasik District for a period of two years. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the State Government, which came to be dismissed by an order dated 13-6-1990.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the specific facts of the present case, we consider it necessary to advert to one peculiarity that is prevalent with a degree of consistence in a large number of externment appeals that have been decided by the State Government. We have brought it to the notice of Mr. Kothari, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, that the wording of the orders passed by the State Government in all these cases is so similar that it almost appears to this Court that the concerned officers are passing cyclostyled orders with the minimum amount of modification as far as the name and address of the petitioner is concerned. To this, Mr. Kothari pointed out that the wording of the operative part of the order while disposing of all these appeals is similar, but that the appellate authority has been passing orders separately dealing with the merits of each case, and that unfortunately the appellants have not been obtaining the copies of these orders as a result of which the aforesaid impression is created. Mr. Kothari pointed out that the appellants are required to apply separately for a certified copy of the order in question and in the absence of their adopting such a procedure that they have been relying only on an operative part of the order. If the Court before which these cases appear for decision is to be in a position to gauge as to whether there has been due application of mind at the appellate level, it is but essential that the complete order be placed before this Court. If this is not done by the petitioner, it would be extremely difficult for the Court to arrive at a proper decision. It would, therefore, stand to reason that the appellate authority must, in all cases, furnish to the party concerned a full and complete copy of the order and not only operative part of it. The additional reason for this is that the appellant against whom the order is made must have a reasonable opportunity of placing before the Court all grounds of challenge. As matters stand, where the appellant points out to the Court that the appellant authority is mechanically disposing of the appeals in externment cases the argument finds support in the order from the fact that orders in all the matters are identical and it becomes extremely difficult to repel such an argument in the absence of the complete order.

(3.) DEALING with the facts of the present case, Mr. Patil, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the order of externment dated 31-3-1990 is assailable basically on two grounds. His first submission is that the order suffers from a degree of vagueness which virtually renders it impossible for the petitioner to meet the charges that have been levelled against him. The second contention advanced by Mr. Patil is that one of the important circumstances alleged against the petitioner was that a prosecution, namely, C. R. No. 190 of 1989, was pending against him. The accused in this case was charged with having committed offence punishable under sections 394 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, both of which are extremely serious charges. It is the contention of Mr. Patil that the petitioner was acquitted by the Sessions Court of these offences on 28-3-1990, i. e. , before the passing of the order of externment. Mr. Patil has annexed a copy of the judgment of the Sessions Courts to the petition and he has submitted that the petitioner was not acquitted either for want of evidence or on the basis of any technicality, but that the petitioner came to be acquitted on merits. In this view of the matter according to Mr. Patil, this circumstance could not have either been relied upon or the same used for the purpose of making any order against the petitioner.