ABASAHEB BALASAHEB WARKHADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) The background facts for filing the present Petition as disclosed in the memo of the Petition, in brief, are as under:

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the notice issued to the Petitioner under Section 59 of the Act of 1951, not even in brief gives the circumstance for which he is proposed to be externed and only four crimes registered against the Petitioner at Rahuri police station are mentioned. It is submitted that despite being apprised by the Petitioner that from the offence mentioned at sr. No.3 of the notice already he has been acquitted, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shrirampur has gone ahead and considered the same for the purpose of externing the Petitioner from Ahmednagar District, which by itself is excessive. It is submitted that nowhere on record there is any allegation or material to show that the Petitioner has caused any hindrance in the course of investigation. There is no allegation as to how and whether the Petitioner has tried to influence or threaten any witnesses, at any point of time thereby causing discord between society and law.