Partly allowed

Rajendra S/O Shankarrao Thombare v. State of Mah. through Sub Divisional Magistrate, Wardha and 2 Others

Bombay HC23 Feb 2018WP/98/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition challenges an order of externment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Wardha. The High Court held that the order was liable to be set aside as it suffered from non-application of mind, lack of reasons, and failure to refer to recorded witness statements.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of externment dated 20.12.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Wardha is quashed and set aside.

Rajendra S/O Shankarrao Thombare Vs State of Mah… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

WP98-18

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 98/2018

¶5

(RAJENDRA SHANKARRAO THOMBARE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SDM, WARDHA & OTHERS)

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

- - - - Shri M. Rai, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional P.P. for the respondents.

¶8

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND

¶9

A.D. UPADHYE, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 23, 2018.

¶10

By this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Wardha dated 20.12.2017 externing the petitioner from Wardha, Chandrapur, Amravati and Yavatmal districts for a period of two years.

¶11

The impugned order is liable to be set aside for more reasons than one. Though it appears that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had recorded the in-camera statements of two witnesses before passing the externment order, there is no reference to the statements of the witnesses either in the show cause notice served to the petitioner under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act and also no reference to the same in the impugned order. If the externment order is passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Act, it would be necessary for the externing authority to record a finding after perusal of the in-camera statements of the witnesses that the witnesses are not ready to come forward to tender evidence against the accused by apprehending danger to their life or property. Though the statements of the witnesses are recorded, there is no mention of the same either in the show cause notice or in the impugned order. Also, we do not find any reasons in the impugned order for externing the petitioner out of the four districts when the

¶12

2 WP98-18

¶13

alleged criminal activities of the petitioner were confined only to Wardha city. It further appears that though the petitioner is acquitted in seven out of the nine offences registered against him under Chapters XII, XVI and XVII of the Penal Code, the impugned order wrongly records that all the nine offences are pending. The impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶14

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Order accordingly.

¶15

JUDGE JUDGE

¶16

APTE

Rajendra S/O Shankarrao Thombare v. State of Mah. through Sub Divisional Magistrate, Wardha and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra S/O Shankarrao Thombare v. State of Mah. through Sub Divisional Magistrate, Wardha and 2 Others

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

M/S Industrial Security Services Thr. Prop. Basdeosingh Mukhtyarsingh Sogarwal, Nagpur Vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corp. Limited, Thr. Managing Director, Nagpur and Another

Shivaji Pritam Pandit and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Pinjar Dist. Akola

Mr. Rajkumar S/O. Dayaramji Patel Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Dharni Dist. Amravati

Kunal @ Golu Anil Jaiswal Vs the Divisional Commissioner Nagpur Division and Another

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Divisional Manager Kolkata Thr. Nagpur Branch Vs Grace @ Ezhilarasi W/O Late Pankaj Kapoor and Others

Anand S/O Keshaorao Shahare Vs Anup Kumar, Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur