NYAJU NIYAJ MOHD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is hereby decided finally at this stage because the petition is connected with the proceeding which is initiated against the petitioner in view of Provisions of Sections 5 and 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, (Herein after referred to as 'the Adhiniyam' for convenience).

(2.) The proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner in view of the above mentioned Provision of the Adhiniyam as the District Magistrate, Dhar has been informed that thhe petitioner has criminal history and therefore his being at large in the society, is dangerous to the safety and property of the citizens residing in the particular area. While showing the cause in response to the notice issued to him in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Adhiniyam, the petitioner expressed his desire to examine certain witnesses. He also made a prayer that these witnesses be summoned by District Magistrate who was conducting the said proceeding. The District Magistrate rejected his prayer and passed an order externing him from district of Dhar and its adjacent districts, for a period of 1 year.

(3.) Shri Sunil Jain submitted that the procedure adopted by District Magistrate, Dhar is not consistent with the procedure established by law and it is inconsistent with guarantee provided by relevant Article of the Indian Constitution. Shri Amit Agrawal appearing for the respondent, by making reference to Section 8 of the Adhiniyam pointed out that the District Magistrate, Dhar is not obliged or duty bound for summoning the witnesses who have been indicated in the list with reply to show cause notice. He pointed out that the words "Witnesses produced" have to be interpreted properly. According to the submission of Shri Agrawal, such witness is to be produced by proposed externee whom he wants to examine in the same proceeding. He submitted that the crimes have been committed by petitioner and, therefore, there is no failure of justice.