SHRI NITESH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel Mr. A.B. Moon for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P.V. Bhoyar for the respondents. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner impugns the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone -1, Nagpur in exercise of his powers under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act directing the petitioner to remove himself from the territorial limits of Nagpur district for a period of two years. The impugned order has been passed on 10th September, 2012.

(3.) AS far as delay is concerned, the learned Counsel Mr. A.B. Moon has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Shahid Mohammedali Bepari vs. The Sub -Divisional Magistrate & ors. reported at : 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2246. In the said case, the petitioner was externed on the basis of solitary incident, which had occurred on 2nd September, 2009. The petitioner was served with show cause notice on 20th August, 2010 and the impugned order was passed on 11th April, 2011. As such the impugned order was passed after about one year and seven months from the date of incident on the basis of which the petitioner was externed. In the present case, the petitioner is involved in about eleven cases including the cases under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been acquitted of the charges in two cases. Nine cases are still pending against him. The last offence allegedly committed by the applicant was dated 1st August, 2011, which is punishable under Sections 395 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 read with Section 4 of the Arms Act. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17th March, 2012. The externment order has been passed on 10th September, 2012. During the period between 17th March, 2012 and 10th September, 2012 the other statutory steps were taken according to law, which included show cause notice to be issued to the proposed externee and holding of enquiry. An enquiry was held by the Sub -Divisional Police Officer/ACP under the orders of respondent No. 2. After submission of enquiry report, the same was considered by respondent No. 2 and the impugned order came to be passed.