SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Bom) 1747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
B.R. GAVAI & Z.A. HAQ, JJ.
Manorama
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & other
Criminal Writ Petition No. 277 of 2013
Decided On: 3.9.2013

Subject

Criminal Law - EXTERNMENT

Act Referred

BOMBAY POLICE ACT : S.56
BOMBAY PROHIBITION ACT : .

Headnote

Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 56 - Order of externment. - Held, orders of externment passed, taking into consideration prosecutions under Bombay Prohibition Act, illegal. Perusal of the impugned order shows that all the 51 prosecutions, on which reliance is placed for passing the impugned orders, are under the Bombay Prohibition Act. It need not be stated that it is well settled that an order of externment cannot be passed taking into consideration the prosecutions under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The orders suffer from patent illegality and are unsustainable in law.

Advocates appeared:
Mr. SUBHEDAR, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. M.K. PATHAN, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard Mr. Subhedar, learned Advocate for petitioner and Mr. M.K. Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.

2. The challenge is to the order of externment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Wardha dated 30.7.2012 and the appellate order passed by the Secretary (Special), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra dated 28.3.2013 externing the petitioner from the districts of Wardha, Amravati and Yavatmal for two years.

3. Perusal of the impugned order shows that all the 51 prosecutions, on which reliance is placed for passing the impugned orders, are under the Bombay Prohibition Act. It need not be stated that it is well settled that an order of externment cannot be passed taking into consideration the prosecutions under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The orders suffer from patent illegality and are unsustainable in law.

4. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (1). There will be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.




1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top