Bombay High Court
Prem Singh @ Kallu Singh S/O Chatar Singh ... vs The State Of Mha. Thr. Sub-Divisional ... on 24 March, 2023
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
Judgment wp71.23
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 71/2023.
Prem Singh @ Kallu Singh
s/o Chatar Singh Juni,
Aged 46 years, Occupation -
Business, resident of Wadner,
Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha. ... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1.The State of Maharashtra,
through Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Hinganghat, Wardha.
2.The Police Inspector,
Police Station Wadner,
Wadner. ... RESPONDENTS.
---------------------------------
Mr. R.S. Renu, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. N.R.Rode, A.P.P. for Respondents/State.
----------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 24, 2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and matter is Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2023 23:26:48 :::
Judgment wp71.23 2 heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner has been externed from entire Wardha District for a period of 6 months vide impugned order dated 08.12.2022, passed by respondent no.1 - Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hinganghat, District Wardha. The action has been taken under Section 56[1][a] and [b] of the Maharashtra Police Act.
3. The petitioner has interalia challenged the impugned action on the ground that the externment order is solely based on prior offence registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Maharashtra Prohibition Act. He would submit that the authorities have not recorded their subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner causes an alarm, danger or harm to a person or property. Moreover, it is submitted that the prior offence does not fall under Chapter XII, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, the entire action is illegal.
Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2023 23:26:48 :::
Judgment wp71.23 3
4. The learned A.P.P. has filed reply-affidavit on behalf of respondents. It is stated that the petitioner was continuously selling liquor in the prohibited area. Preventive action was taken against him, however, he was indulging into similar activities, and therefore, the externment order is well founded.
5. The impugned order bears a chart indicating 9 prior offences registered within a span from 18.07.2018 to 08.07.2021 pertaining to the offence punishable under Sections 65E and 77A of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. True, one isolated offence has been registered under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. However the entire action is based on the offence registered under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act.
6. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner was indulging into sale of illicit liquor in the prohibited area, which caused a concern for taking action. There is no satisfaction about the need of externment on account of offences registered under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Time and again in several decisions Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2023 23:26:48 :::
Judgment wp71.23 4 this Court has observed that the action of externment cannot be based primely on the ground of offences registered under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. Apart from that, there does not appear to be any live link in between the last offence and the impugned action in the matter. In the circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
7. In view of above discussion, Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order of externment passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hinganghat dated 08.12.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2023 23:26:48 :::