Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 June, 2020
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1 W.P. No.5453 of 2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar
WRIT PETITION NO.5453 OF 2020
Ravi Gupta
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Present :-
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Utkarsh Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
(Passed on this 25th day of June, 2020) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order passed on 11.02.2020 in an appeal under Section 9 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, District Rewa (M.P.) arising out of the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Sidhi, District Sidhi (M.P.) whereby, by invoking the powers under Sections 5 and 6 of the Adhiniyam, the District Magistrate has externed the petitioner from entering into the District Sidhi and the contiguous districts thereof for a period of one year.
2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned District Magistrate has erred in passing the impugned order dated 23.09.2019, which has been affirmed by the Commissioner without due application of mind. It is further submitted that against the petitioner as many as 09 criminal cases 2 W.P. No.5453 of 2020 were registered out of which he has already been acquitted in 06 of them, however only 03 cases are still pending. It is further submitted that from the year 2012 to 2018 these cases were registered and thereafter since last two years the petitioner has not indulged in any criminal activity. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside as there is no proximity of the offence committed by him to the order of externment. It is further submitted that even otherwise the original order was passed on 23.09.2019 and as on date it has already been more than 09 months since the order of externment was passed and under the present situation when the period of externment is already in operation, the COVID-19 virus pandemic is also spreading like wild fire and the people are advised to stay at home only, the impugned order of externment may be set aside.
3. Counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer. The counsel has initially submitted that one more opportunity may be granted to the State to file their reply. However, on merits it is submitted that no illegality or jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned District Magistrate as there are as many as 09 cases registered against the petitioner although out of which he has already been acquitted in 06 of them, however, the acquittal is based on compromise entered into between the parties and there is no clean acquittal, regarding other three cases it is submitted that they are still pending against the petitioner and as such no interference is called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, it is submitted that the petition be dismissed with cost.
3 W.P. No.5453 of 2020
4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From the record, this Court finds that out of 09 cases which also include a couple of cases under the provisions of Gambling Act, four cases were registered in the year 2012, one case in the year 2013 and one case in the year 2016 whereas 03 other cases were registered in the year 2018 only. Out of these 09 cases, the petitioner has been acquitted in 08 such cases and only one case registered in the year 2018 is pending. In the aforesaid cases, the offences alleged against the petitioner under Sections 427, 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC, 452 of IPC. have also been registered against him. The learned District Magistrate in the impugned order dated 23.09.2019 has concluded that in all 09 cases have been registered against him, out of which in 06 cases he has already been acquitted or discharged and in the year 2018, 03 other criminal cases have been registered against him. It has also been concluded that on account of the petitioner's criminal activities, the people in the area are refraining from lodging the report and giving their evidence in a free manner, hence it is necessary to curb the activities of the petitioner.
6. On due consideration of the documents placed on record by the petitioner, this Court finds that even according to the impugned orders the criminal activities in which the petitioner has indulged so far cannot be said to be involving serious offences. Looking to the fact that in the year 2018 itself 03 other criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner and the show cause notice under the provisions of the Adhiniyam was issued to him on 22.10.2018 under the provisions of the said Adhiniyam which 4 W.P. No.5453 of 2020 ultimately culminated into impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa vide its order dated 11.02.2020, and on due consideration of the petition as also the documents placed on record including the impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate as also the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, this Court is of the considered opinion that so far as the invocation of power under the provisions of the Adhiniyam is concerned, the District Magistrate has committed no error as the provisions of the Adhiniyam have been rightly invoked by the District Magistrate looking to the criminal activities of the petitioner. It may be true that the petitioner may have been discharged or acquitted in 06 of 09 cases, however three cases were registered against him in the year 2018 itself and regardless of the fact that the offences were not serious in nature but still they posed reasonable apprehension in the minds of public at large regarding their safety and thus, it cannot be said that if any person is not coming forward to depose against the petitioner, he cannot be believed. Thus, this Court holds that so far as exercise of jurisdiction by the District Magistrate as well as the Commissioner in the appeal is concerned, both of them have exercised the jurisdiction under the provisions of the Adhiniyam properly and as provided under the law.
7. So far as the period of externment is concerned, this Court is also of the opinion that in normal circumstances, this Court would not have interfered in the discretion exercised by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner, however, looking to the period of externment which is more 5 W.P. No.5453 of 2020 than 09 months as the impugned order has been passed originally by the Collector on 23.09.2019, only three months have remained to be undergone. This Court is of the opinion that in these times of Covid-19 virus when the entire nation is under lockdown, the period of externment can be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner which is 09 months 02 days as this Court is conscious of the fact that when the aforesaid orders were passed by the District Magistrate and subsequently by the Commissioner, no such considerations were available as at that time there was no such threat posed by the Covid-19 virus as has been posed during the recent times specially after the third week of March, 2020.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this petition is partly allowed and while upholding the orders passed by the District Magistrate as also the Commissioner, this Court modifies the same and reduces the period of externment awarded to the petitioner to the period already undergone by him instead of one year.
9. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands partly allowed and disposed of.
(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge 25 /06/2020 DV Digitally signed by DINESH VERMA Date: 2020.06.30 17:16:13 +05'30'