1. This petition challenges an order made by the Additional District Magistrate, Poona, under Section 57, Bombay Police Act. In our opinion the order is unsustainable. The order directed the externment of the petitioner who is doing business as a money lender and who is a man of substance and of property. It appears that three prosecutions were launched against him in respect of three articles seized from him.

Originally 2,000 articles were seized, the rest were returned, and the three prosecutions were confined to these three articles and the charge in each of these prosecutions was under Section 411, I. P. C. Two of the prosecutions failed in appeal and the petitioner was acquitted. The third was confirmed in appeal, although the sentence was reduced. A notice under Section 59 was served upon the petitioner on 9-5-1955. He filed his written statement and then the order challenged was ultimately passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Poona.

2. The approach of the Additional District Magistrate is, in our opinion, totally erroneous. In the first place, he has relied in this order on two recent prosecutions in respect of which no notice was given to the petitioner, and