ROHIT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the final order dated 02.05.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner at Aurangabad, thereby externing the petitioner from the area of Jalna district for a period of two years. The petitioner submits that he is running Om Sai Enterprise and xerox business and meanwhile certain offences are registered against the petitioner. The petitioner has contended that there was RCC No.369 of 2011 against him and two others for offence punishable under sections 353, 332, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short "IPC"]. As per judgment dated 24.02.2014, said accused were acquitted of the offence under sections 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the IPC. The accused were convicted for the offence under section 353 read with 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Further, they were convicted for offence under section 332 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to a fine of Rs.1000.00 in default they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner submits that he preferred Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2014 before the Sessions Court, Jalna against the conviction order dated 24.02.2014 in RCC No.369 of 2011 which is pending adjudication.

(3.) The petitioner states that the S.D.P.O. Jalna vide order dated 24.10.2016 conducted enquiry and submitted report vide letter No.2210/2016 dated 06.12.2016. The externment proceedings came to be initiated against the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is involved in Crimes punishable under the Penal Code and created terror in the locality. However, a notice dated 02.11.2016 issued by the S.D.P.O. Jalna was served to the petitioner, wherein reply was called from the petitioner to submit his say regarding the allegation. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared and submitted written statement before enquiry officer dated 29.11.2016. On the basis of said report, respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 23.12.2016 to the petitioner in respect of initiation of externment proceedings against him. The petitioner appeared in the said proceedings on given date and filed written statement against show cause notice, dated 04.02.2017. The petitioner asked for personal hearing, however, the said request of the petitioner was not considered and the respondent No.3 passed impugned order dated 27.02.2017, thereby ordering externment of petitioner from Jalna, Aurangabad, Buldhana districts for a period of two years in Ws No.2016/MAG/cr41.