MAHENDRA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by petitioner Mahendra Sharma @ Mahendra Sardar seeking an order quashing Annexure-3 which is an order dated 29.5.2014, passed by the District Magistrate, Arwal and communicated to all concerned by his Memo No. 368/Vidhi of that day as also Annexure-4 which order was passed consequent upon passing of the order contained in Annexure-3 by which the present petitioner was directed to remove himself from the limits of district Arwal for a period of six months from that order in the light of provisions of Section 3(3)(a) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 ('the Act' in short). It appears that a report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Arwal by his Memo No. 528, dated 31.3.2014 (Annexure-2) stating that the petitioner had committed murder of one Vivek Sharma by shooting him down and Karpi (Bansi O.P.) P.S. Case No. 56 of 2011 had been registered on the 12th of May, 2011 under Sections 302/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act in that behalf ' and further that after investigation the case was found true and the police had submitted charge-sheet for the trial of the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, Arwal also noted in his above report (Annexure-2) that the petitioner was bearing criminal antecedents of three cases including the above noted case. The above report of the Superintendent of Police, Arwal was considered by the District Magistrate (D.M.), Arwal who finally drew satisfaction on that report and issued an order on 29.5.2014 directing the present petitioner to remove himself from the limits of District-Arwal for a period of six months. A copy of the above order was undisputedly served upon the petitioner and this gave cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court through the present petition.

(2.) The petitioner has submitted in his petition as also through his counsel that while issuing order contained in Annexures-3 and 4, the District Magistrate was enjoined under law to issue a show-cause first, calling upon the petitioner to appear either personally or through a counsel of his choice to reply to the contents of the notice envisaged under Section 3(1) of the Act and in case he had chosen to lead evidence in rebuttal of the allegations which were made against him by the police through its report, then he was entitled to adduce evidence also. The petitioner has submitted that the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act was not complied with and, as such, it was an order which suffers from arbitrariness and non-compliance with the provisions of law.

(3.) We have, perused the counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the State which runs into 15 paragraphs and while justifying the order contained in Annexures-3 and 4 issued by the District Magistrate, Arwal, the State does not appear controverting the submissions of the petitioner on non-compliance of Section 3(2) of the Act.