NITIN @ BABLOO Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AMRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16112015 passed by the respondent No.1 under provisions of Section 56 (1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 externing the petitioner from the limits of Amravati City as well as Amravati District for a period of two years.

(3.) Shri P. V. Navlani, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of externment is vitiated inter alia on the following grounds: Firstly, in the show cause notice, it was stated that a Court case that was filed against the petitioner on the basis of Crime No.3007/2009 was pending. It is submitted that the aforesaid matter was disposed of on 1472011 by acquitting the petitioner. Secondly, it is submitted that in the show cause notice there is no reference made to the recording of in camera statements of two witnesses. However, in the impugned order, the respondent No.1 has relied upon said two in camera statements while directing externment of the petitioner. Such course was not permissible. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Pradeep Somnath Gupta VS. State of Maharashtra 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 4845 in that regard. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order suffers from aforesaid infirmities as well as from lack of subjective satisfaction thereby vitiating the same.