SOHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the Counsels for the parties.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, in one of the crime out of three cases registered against him with Tophkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar the petitioner is already tried and trial ended in acquittal. It is submitted that, though specific ground was taken in reply that, the petitioner is acquitted, however, the respondent authorities have not considered the said fact and therefore, an externment proceedings stands vitiated. It is further submitted two cases registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.168/2010 and Crime No.73/2012 are still pending and in both the cases the petitioner is on bail. It is further submitted that, the mandate of Section 56 (1) (a) (b) of the Bombay Police Act has not been followed by the respondent authorities inasmuch as it is not mentioned in the show cause notice as well as externment order that, the activities of the petitioner are such that it has created alarm, danger or harm to person or public property. It is further submitted that, the father in law of the complainant was serving as Thane Amaldar in Tophkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar and therefore, out of personal rivalry, externment proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner. It is submitted that, the offences registered against the petitioner are on account of personal rivalry and nothing to do with the public peace and public property.