Dismissed

Rahim Abdul Hakim Lashkari v. the Assttant Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Sept 2004WP/1469/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging an externment order. The Court held that new grounds could not be raised for the first time on the merits of steriotype statements and that the lower authorities relied on valid incidents creating fear among locals.

What did the court decide?

The criminal writ petition was dismissed upon finding no interference warranted in the facts found:

Rahim Abdul Hakim Lashkari Vs the Assttant Commissioner of Police and Ors. — Bombay HC (2004) — LawSathi Research

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1469 OF 2004
 --------------------------------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders
 Memoranda of Coram,
 appearances, Court’s
 orders or directions
 and Registrar’s orders
 --------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Ujwal R. Agandsurve for the
 petitioner.
 Shri A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P.for the
 State.
CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.
DATE : 09.09.2004
P.C.
 . Heard Counsel for the
 parties.
 2. The first grievance made
 before this Court is that the
 authorities below have relied on
 statement to establish the fact
 that petitioner was indulging in
 terrorising the persons staying
 in the locality. However, those

¶4

:2:

¶5

 statements are stereo typed
 statements and will have to be

¶6

 discarded. However, no such

¶7

 grievance was made on behalf of

¶8

 the petitioner either in response

¶9

 to the show cause notice or
 during the hearing before the
 first authority or for that
 matter before the appellate

¶10

 authority. The petitioner cannot
 be permitted to raise new issues
 for the first time before this
 Court in writ jurisdiction,
 especially of the nature that the
 statements are got up or

¶11

 fabricated documents.

¶12

 3. The next argument
 canvassed before this Court is
 that the basis on which, perhaps,
 the action was instituted against
 the petitioner, is that, no

¶13

 witnesses were coming forward to
 give evidence. It is submitted

¶14

:3:

¶15

 that it is matter of record that
 three offences have already been
 registered in respect of which
 investigation is completed and
 charge-sheet has also been filed
 before the appropriate Court.
 The argument is that if
 investigation was proceeded in
 those case and charge-sheet has
 been filed it pre supposes that
 the witnesses have volunteered to
 give evidence. This submission
 over looks the basis on which
 action of externment was
 initiated against the petitioner.
 Action is not only in relation to
 the criminal cases which were
 already registered but the
 subsequent incidents which are
 referred to in the show cause
 notice mentioning the fact that
 the persons were afraid of
 registering the complaint against
 the petitioner. It is on that

¶16

:4:

¶17

 basis the first authority has
 eventually passed the order
 invoking section 56(1)(a) and (b)
 of Bombay Police Act. That
 decision recorded by the first
 authority, has been confirmed by
 the appellate authority which was
 the final fact finding authority.
 Viewed in this perspective, no

¶18

 interference is warranted,

¶19

 petition dismissed.

Rahim Abdul Hakim Lashkari v. the Assttant Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahim Abdul Hakim Lashkari v. the Assttant Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A/1 Co-Operative Houssing Soc Ltd. Vs M/S Jaikhsian and Co. and Others.

Abdul Malik Mohd.Hussein Vs Zakiya Bano Abdul Mailk and Ors.

M/S. Shreeji Agro International and Ors. Vs Shri. Navin Kantilal Thakkar and Anr.

Laxmi Koli @ Babita Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lalchand N. Sadnani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Smt. Mehfuja Yakub Patrwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.