JAGDISH @ MUNNA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of externment dated 03.01.2019 (Annexure P/6) and the order dated 29.10.2018 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Hoshangabad (M.P.) and District Magistrate, Hoshangabad (M.P.) respectively under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam of 1990'). Vide order dated 29.10.2018, the District Magistrate has externed the petitioner from the District of Hoshangabad and the adjoining districts for a period of one year. In an appeal preferred against the aforesaid order, the Commissioner, Narmadapuram has affirmed the said order vide its order dated 03.01.2019.

(2.) In brief the facts of the case are that on 05.02.2018 a notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be externed from the district of Hoshangabad as as many as 09 cases have been registered against him, out of which cases at Sr. No.1 to 3 were registered in the year 2014, No.4 and 5 were of 2015 and No.6 was in the year 2016 whereas Sr. No.7 and 8 the cases were registered in the year 2017 whereas only one case was registered against him in the year 2018.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the case at Sr. No.2 is concerned, he has already been acquitted in the same, however the other 08 cases are still pending adjudication hence it cannot be said that the people of the locality are not coming forward to depose against him on account of fear generated by the petitioner. The counsel has further submitted that so far as the cases from Sr. No.1 to 5 are concerned, they are in respect of the family dispute of the petitioner and the society at large is not affected so far as these offences are concerned. The counsel has further submitted that the learned District Magistrate has not recorded its satisfaction as to the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal cases which has led to the fear in the mind of the public so as to compel him to be externed from the District of Hoshangabad. It is further submitted that no independent witness has been produced on whose deposition a satisfaction can be recorded under the Act of 1990. The counsel has also relied upon a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2009(4) M.P.L.J. 434.