AVINASH PRAKASH CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The criminal writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) By this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Umarkhed dated 28/12/2017 externing the petitioner from Yavatmal District and some parts of Nanded District for a period of one year.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and the same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that though the Sub Divisional Magistrate has relied on the in-camera statements of the two unknown witnesses while passing the order of externment, no opportunity whatsoever was granted to the petitioner to meet the case of the respondents on the basis of such statements. It is submitted that what was said by the witnesses was not mentioned in the notice served on the petitioner under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act. It is submitted that though there is no mention about the statements of the two unknown witnesses in the show-cause-notice, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has relied on these statements while passing the impugned order. It is submitted that though the statements of the witnesses have been relied on, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has not recorded a finding that he was satisfied that the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence against the petitioner in public. It is submitted that since the externment order is passed against the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Section 56 (1) (b) of the Act it was necessary for the Sub Divisional Magistrate to have recorded a finding that in his opinion the witnesses were not willing to come forward by reason of apprehension about danger to their life or property. It is submitted that the impugned order is harsh and excessive inasmuch as the petitioner is externed out of Yavatmal District and some parts of Nanded District for one year. It is submitted that though the petitioner is acquitted of the offence in Crime No.260/2010 it is wrongly observed in the impugned order that the proceedings in respect of the said crime are pending against him.