Bombay High Court
Shri Monya @ Rohit Rajendra Chavan vs Dy. Commissioner Of Police on 5 September, 2012
Author: A.M. Khanwilkar
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, R.Y. Ganoo
PPD
1
21.wp.2796-12.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2796 OF 2012
Shri Monya @ Rohit Rajendra Chavan
Age - 21 yrs, R/at House No.170, Ganesh
Peth, Front of sadadi sadan, Pune. ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Zone-1, Pune city.
2. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents
....
Mr. Vishal Patil, for the Petitioner.
Mr. K.V. Saste, APP, for the Respondent - State.
ig ....
CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, &
R.Y. GANOO, JJ.
DATE : 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2012
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.)
1. Heard Counsel for the parties.
2. Two points have been urged before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first point is that on the one hand preventive action under Section 110(e)(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner came to be dropped on 22.8.2011, and on the other hand the police authorities decided to initiate externment proceedings against the petitioner in September, 2011 without there being any tangible material justifying initiation of the said action after 22.8.2011. As regards this contention, we find merit in the submission made by the learned APP that there is nothing wrong if the 1 / 3 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:03:54 ::: 2
21.wp.2796-12.doc Sponsoring Authority decided to drop the preventive action under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. which is only in the nature of executing a bond of undertaking for maintenance of peace; whereas the preventive action under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act is intended to remove the person from the concerned area to ensure that he would not indulge in similar activities in future. This was necessitated because in spite of initiating preventive action under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. on 4.6.2011, the petitioner had the audacity to indulge in another criminal offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 427, 34 of IPC on 7.7.2011. In view of this development, the Sponsoring Authority, in our opinion, justly decided to do away with the preventive action under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. and in stead take stringent action against the petitioner to ensure that he does not indulge in commission of prejudicial activities in future. This fact has been noted in the show cause notice as well as in the impugned externment order. In our view, therefore, it is neither a case of non-application of mind by the Externing Authority nor affecting the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Externing Authority in that behalf.
3. The second point urged before us is that the Externing Authority must have taken into account the criminal case registered against the petitioner in which the petitioner has been acquitted. It is not in dispute that when the externment action was initiated, the criminal case was pending and not finally disposed off. The said criminal case has been disposed of only in March, 2012, whereas the impugned externment order has been passed on 9th February, 2012.
2 / 3 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:03:54 ::: 321.wp.2796-12.doc Thus understood, acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case in March, 2012 by no stretch of imagination can be considered as affecting the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Externing Authority in anterior point of time. Accordingly, even the second point urged before us is devoid of merit.
4. Counsel for the petitioner lastly argued that the petitioner's mother is working as a labourer on daily wages. In the interest of justice, therefore, at least the period of externment be reduced. The externment order directs the petitioner to remove himself from the specified area for a period of two years. It is not for this Court to sit in appeal over that subjective satisfaction recorded by the Externing Authority. It is a different matter if the Externing Authority were, on its own, decide to reduce the period if the law permits the Authority to do so. The petitioner is free to make representation to the Externing Authority in that behalf, which may be considered by the said Authority on its own merits in accordance with law. We are not expressing any opinion in that behalf. The Externing Authority shall consider the said representation, if it has power to do so. That is a matter which will have to be considered as and when occasion arises.
5. The petition is dismissed.
(R.Y. GANOO, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) 3 / 3 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:03:54 :::