MOHAMMED ZAKIR MOHAMMED GHOUSE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, matter is heard for final disposal. The proceeding is filed to challenge the orders made by S.D.M. Degloor and the State Government in externment proceeding. The externment proceeding was started on the basis of report given by Degloor police station. It was informed by police that atleast 5 crimes were registered against the petitioner for offences committed under IPC and Bombay Police Act and he had created terror in society. Police had proposed to keep the petitioner out of 3 districts like Nanded, Latur and Parbhani. Such notice was given under Section 56 of Bombay Police Act to the petitioner. Petitioner gave reply to the notice and denied the allegations. He contended that in C.R. No. 25/2000 mentioned in the show cause notice, he was acquitted in the year 2002 itself. He informed that he was acquitted in other crime like Crime No. 131/01, 11/08 and 56/10. Police had filed copies of FIR alongwith report before S.D.M.

(2.) The S.D.M. made order of externment and directed to keep the petitioner out of 4 districts like Nanded, Latur, Hingoli and Parbhani. It appears that the S.D.M. directed the S.D.O. of Police, to make enquiry and he collected more information. The enquiry showed that out of 5 crimes mentioned in the first notice, in 4 crimes, the petitioner was already acquitted. It was reported that 4 more crimes like Crime Nos. 180, 181, 183, 184 and 189 of 2012 were registered against the petitioner during enquiry. On the basis of this record, the order came to be made. These circumstances are mentioned in the decision of the Appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner took this Court through copies of some documents to show that in most of the cases which were shown in show cause notice, the petitioner was already acquitted. In reply filed by State also, there is mention that in all old cases, the petitioner was acquitted. It is surprising that in the past, in show cause notice, 2 cases filed under Bombay Police Act were also mentioned and they were considered by the S.D.M. The record shows that fresh notice was not given in respect of the crimes which were found to be registered during enquiry against the petitioner. It was submitted that all the 5 crimes of the year 2012 were registered in October 2012. In respect of these crimes, no opportunity of having Say was given to the petitioner, this circumstance shows the non application of mind by the authorities who made externment order against petitioner. On this point, learned counsel for petitioner relied on the case Bombay High Court [Ganu vs. M.V. Chitale and another, 1988 CrLJ 1547] and Bombay High Court [Barku Chendha Datir vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate and another, 1983 2 BCR 761]. In both these cases, it is observed that there must be some material for passing the order of externment. In the present case also, discussion made above shows that there was no material against the petitioner to show why show cause notice was issued against him. It cannot be said that in respect of newly registered crime, opportunity was given to the petitioner to have his say.