BHOLA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition under Art. 2261221 of the Constitution of India is to an order of externment passed by District Magistrate on 2-5-2008 in a criminal Case No. 3/2007 and the order dated 24-6-2008 by the Divisional commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar whereby the order of externment dated 2-5-2008 has been affirmed. The order of externment has been passed in exercise of power under Section 3 (2) and Sections 5 and 6 of Madhya Pradesh rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (referred to as 'adhiniyam' ).

(2.) THE brief facts culled out from the pleadings put forth by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a resident of Sukhchain Ward, Tehsil Deori, district Sagar. The petitioner was served a show-cause notice on. 2/4-2-2008 under the Adhiniyam as to why an action be not taken against him under the adhiniyam and be externed from the territorial limits of District Sagar and its surrounding districts. As many as 23 cases were reported to be registered against the petitioner under Section 4-A of Public Gambling Act, 1867 (for short 'the act of 1867') read with Section 120-B, IPC and under Sections 107,110,116 and 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code and was convicted under Section 4-A of the act of 1867 on five occasions. The petitioner filed his objection mainly on the ground that the inclusion of the convictions under Section 4-A of Public gambling Act which was prior to year 2006 could not be taken into consideration, because, the same was substituted in the Adhiniyam in the year 2006 vide the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2006 w. e. f. 5-9-2006 and that he was leading a peaceful life along with his family. The petitioner sought an opportunity of hearing. The authority concerned on receiving the reply and being not satisfied with the explanation registered a case and after recording evidences passed an order of externment on 2-5-2008 which was subsequently affirmed in an appeal preferred by the petitioner by the appellate order dated 24-6-2008. These orders which are being challenged in this petition.

(3.) THE legal validity of the impugned orders is questioned on the following grounds:-