SHEIKH SOYEB Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by order dated 6/03/19 contained in Annexure P/1. By the said order, the Commissioner Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur has confirmed the order passed by District Magistrate, Seoni dated 12/11/18 passed in District Externment Criminal Case No.61/2018.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the District Magistrate, Seoni has initiated proceedings under Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 against the petitioner on basis of the report presented before him on 26/07/18. As many as 11 cases were registered against the petitioner from 2011 to 2018. Out of 11 cases registered against the petitioner, 5 cases were in respect of gambling act and six cases were proceedings which were initiated under Sections 107 & 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Petitioner has filed written reply to the notice on 6/10/18. It is stated by the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in the case.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been convicted and sentenced for grievous offences punishable more than seven years and further no offences have been registered against the petitioner under Chapter 12, 16, 17 or under Section 506 or 509 of Indian Penal Code . False case has been made against the petitioner under the Gambling Act . No proceedings against him can be initiated under Sections 5(b) and 6(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. On the basis of aforesaid submission, the prayer was made to reject the complaint made by Superintendent of Police against the petitioner under Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. Petitioner was given chance to lead defence evidence and he has produced three witnesses, namely, Jaikumar Gajbhiye, Thagram Invati and Shamim. It was also averred by the petitioner that he is only the bread earner of the family. The District Magistrate, Seoni after considering the documents and complaint filed by the Police and also taking into consideration the defence evidence has recorded a finding that the petitioner is continuously involved in the offences punishable under the Gambling Act since 2010-2011 and he has been punished under Section 4 of the Gambling Act pertaining to Crime Nos.211/17,104/18, 132/18. This shows that petitioner has been convicted thrice within a period of two years. The District magistrate was satisfied that there is sufficient and reasonable evidence available for proceeding against the petitioner under Section 6(C) of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. Petitioner was externed from the district of Seoni, Chhindwara, Narsinghpur, Jabalpur, Balaghat and Mandla for a period of one year under Section 5(b) and Section 6(c) of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.