GANPATRAI AGARWALLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Revn. petns. (cri.) Nos. 28 and 30 of 1949. The petitioners were committed to the Court of, and tried by the Political Officer, Sadiya, who was also the Sessions Judge for the area. Ganpatrai was tried for an offence under Section 376, Penal Code, and Radhakissen for its abetment. The petitioners were acquitted of the charges against them. It was found that though Ganpatrai had committed sexual intercourse with Bimola and Radhakissen had abetted the act, no offences had beenn committed as the evidence in the case did not disclose that sexual intercourse had been committed without Bimola's consent. While acquitting both the petitioners of the charges, the Political Officer ordered externment of the petitioners from the Mismi Hills district holding that their presence in the area constituted a menace to society. In his opinion the petitioners were undesirable persons and therefore deserved to be externed.

(2.) The petitioners have applied to this Court for revision of the orders against them by separate petitions.

(3.) The order of externment does not refer to the provision of law under which action was taken. On a rule having been issued calling upon the Political Officer to show cause why the order be not set aside he pointed out that the order had been passed under Section 22, Chin Hill Regulation (v 5] of 1896) and that no appeal or revision lay to the High Court. The order could be revised only by the Provincial Government. The learned Government Advocate supports this position and urges that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition.