SUNIL ALIAS SANNU Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order 30-3-2009, Annexure P-2, passed against him for externment by the District Magistrate, Raisen (respondent No. 3) and the appellate order dated 20-8-2009, Annexure P-l, the Commissioner, Bhopal Division (respondent No. 2) rejecting his appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that on 27-6-2008 the Superintendent of Police, Raisen, submitted a report to the District Magistrate about the gaming activities, committed by the petitioner from 2004, with a request that an externment order be passed against him in exercise of powers under Section 6 (c) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (in short, "the Adhiniyam, 1990"). The State then also examined Station Officer Kotwali G.L. Ariwal, Assistant Sub-Inspector Kotwali Ram Singh Thakur and Govind Singh Raghuvanshi in support of its case. All these witnesses stated that petitioner was involved in gaming activities and despite his repeated conviction under Section 4-A of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (in short, "the Act") he is continuing to engage himself in gaming activities. Being prima facie satisfied with the allegations of gaming activities made against the petitioner, the District Magistrate served a show-cause notice dated 21-11-2008 on him as required under Section 8 (1) of the Adhiniyam, 1990. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 5-1-2009 to the show-cause notice and denied the allegation of involvement in gaming activities. He, however, did not examine any witness in support of his defence and also did not make a request to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the State. The District Magistrate, on coming to a conclusion that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen, has convicted the petitioner in five different cases under Section 4-A of the Act and despite conviction petitioner is continuing to engage himself in gaming activities, directed his extemment for a period of one year from District Raisen and contiguous districts such as Bhopal, Vidisha, Sagar, Sehore, Hoshangabad and Narsinghpur. The order of extemment was passed under Section 6 (c) of the Adhiniyam, 1990. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner but it was dismissed vide order dated 20-8-2009.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was no material before the District Magistrate for passing the order of extemment under Section 6 (c) of the Adhiniyam, 1990 and the District Magistrate committed an illegality in relying upon conviction of cases under Section 4-A of the Act against the petitioner which were registered prior to 2006 because Section 4-A was included in Section 6 (c) of the Adhiniyam, 1990 with effect from 5-9-2006.