Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Ashok Kumar Mani Bhai Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 10 December, 2013

Veeru @ Virendra Rai vs Principal Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 15 September, 2014

8: From the proceedings, it is also not clear whether there was any apprehension that the petitioner would continue to commit the offence if he is not removed from the area. For the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, which according to law is required to be recorded before passing any such order of removal under Section 5 of the Act, the enquiry is required to be conducted. A Division Bench of this Court while dealing with in such aspect in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel Vs. State of M.P. and others [2009(4) MPLJ 434] has categorically held that it is not mere a formality to record the satisfaction, but it is a requirement of law and mere involvement of such a person in the past in any such type of offence would not make out a case for his removal from the area. The findings recorded by the Division Bench in this respect in paragraphs 8 and 9 would be relevant which read thus :-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 44 - K K Trivedi - Full Document

Ramgopal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 September, 2014

The   Division   Bench   of   this   court   in   the   matter   of  Ashok  Kumar   Patel   Vs.   State   of   MP   &   others,  reported   in  2009(4)  MPLJ 434 while considering the requirement of Section 5(b)of the  Act has held as under:­ "10.The second condition which must be satisfied  for passing of an order of externment against a person is  that in the opinion of the District Magistrate, witnesses  are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public  against   such   person   by   a   reason   of   apprehension   on  their   part   as   regards   safety   of   person   or   property.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Umesh Datt Tiwari @ Ballan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 November, 2014

8. The law is well settled in this respect. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel vs. State of M.P. and others, [2009 (4) MPLJ 434] has categorically held that it is not mere a formality to record the satisfaction, but it is a requirement of law and mere involvement of such a person in the past in any such type of offence would not make out a case for his removal from the area. The findings recorded by the Division Bench in this respect in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 read thus :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Kalyan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 March, 2015

11. First of all, what is the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate for initiating the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act, is required to be examined. Trite it is that mechanically on the report of the Superintendent of Police, without recording his own satisfaction, the District Magistrate is not required to initiate the proceedings. This particular aspect is considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel vs. State of M.P. and others, [2009 (4) MPLJ 434] . While dealing with such an aspect, this Court has said that it is not mere formality to record the opinion on the basis of the material placed by the police authorities. The District Magistrate is required to form his own opinion, rather a clear opinion on the basis of material that the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence against such a person because of apprehension on their part as regards safety of person or property. Here in the case in hand the District Magistrate has not blindly acted on the report of the Superintendent of Police but has directed production of independent witnesses, has recorded their statement and has categorically pointed it out to the petitioner while issuing the show cause notice. By doing so, in fact the opinion was formed by the District Magistrate that there was reason to believe that because of criminal activities of the petitioner, the witnesses were not coming forward to depose against him in the criminal prosecution. Even the certified copy of the order passed in one of the cases launched against the petitioner was available where the acquittal of the petitioner was only because not only the complainant but the eye witnesses have become hostile in the Court and they have deposed that the report was not lodged against the petitioner by the complainant nor any incident was reported to the police in the statement under 7 Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the witnesses. If this was the material available before the District Magistrate and if on the basis of this action was taken by him against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the District Magistrate has not complied with the provisions of Section 5(b) of the Act relating to recording his own satisfaction before initiating proceedings against the petitioner.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhaiya Sameer vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 July, 2015

10. Since this Court has already examined the correctness of the order passed by the District Magistrate in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Patel (supra) reference of the aforesaid decisions are not necessary. Suffice it to say that there was no material to show that he Collector has recorded his satisfaction, in all probability for externment of the petitioner, in terms of the provisions of Section 5(b) of the Act in appropriate manner.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - K K Trivedi - Full Document

Sunil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 September, 2015

7: For the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, which according to law is required to be recorded before passing any such order of removal under Section 5 of the Act, the enquiry is required to be conducted. A Division Bench of this Court while dealing with such aspect in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel Vs. State of M.P. and others [2009(4) MPLJ 434] has categorically held that it is not mere a formality to record the satisfaction, but it is a requirement of law and mere involvement of such a person in the past in any such type of offence would not make out a case for his removal from the area. The findings recorded by the Division Bench in this respect in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 would be relevant which read thus :-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - K K Trivedi - Full Document

Akhilesh @ Monu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 September, 2015

10. From the perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that the same is passed only and only on the report of the police authorities and the sole statement of the Station House Officer recorded in camera proceedings without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to rebut such statement. That being so, the enquiry so conducted by the District Magistrate cannot be said to be in compliance of the mandatory provisions of law as propounded by the Apex Court and as have been laid-down by this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel (supra). Time and again this Court has observed that casual findings are recorded by the District Magistrate simply on the basis of the police report. That is not the object of law. In the present case also it is 9 seen that in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of impugned order of District Magistrate, only this much is said that from the report of the Superintendent of Police, the record of the crime, the reply of the petitioner and the arguments of the Assistant District Prosecution Officer, the said District Magistrate has reached to the conclusion that there is every likelihood that the petitioner will repeat the crime and as such the case is made out under Section 5(a) of the Act for his removal. Similarly, on the basis of the aforesaid material, it has been held that a case for removal of the petitioner under Section 5(b) of the Act is made out. Both the aforesaid provisions specifically prescribe that the satisfaction of the District Magistrate should be independent and not only on the basis of such information given by the police authorities. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the procedure adopted by the District Magistrate in passing of the order impugned was not just and proper. The Appellate Authority has not looked into these aspects and, therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is equally bad in law.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ajay Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 October, 2015

10. From the perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that the same is passed only and only on the report of the police authorities. That being so, the enquiry so conducted by the District Magistrate cannot be said to be in compliance of the mandatory provisions of law as propounded by the Apex Court and as have been laid-down by this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel (supra). Time and again this Court has observed that casual findings are recorded by the District Magistrate simply on the basis of the police report.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next