Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
T.V. Nalawade, S.M. Gavhane, JJ.
Limbaji @ Vijay - Appellant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 994 of 2019, 1423 of 2019
Decided On : 22-11-2019
Externment - Maharashtra Police Act - Section 55
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two individuals, Limbaji and Hari, who were subjected to externment orders under section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The police alleged that the individuals were gang leaders involved in various criminal activities, leading to the externment orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish the existence of a 'gang' or 'body of persons' as required by section 55 of the Act. It held that the externment orders were based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations, and were likely motivated by political reasons. As a result, the court set aside the externment orders for both individuals.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the interpretation and application of section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, specifically regarding the establishment of a 'gang' or 'body of persons' and the sufficiency of evidence to support externment orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the provision of section 55 required the establishment of the existence of a 'gang' or 'body of persons' and their activities causing danger or alarm. It held that the orders lacked the necessary evidence to fulfill these requirements, rendering them illegal and without jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the externment orders made against the petitioners, citing the absence of sufficient evidence to support the orders.
JUDGMENT :
T.V. Nalawade, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.
2. The first proceeding is fled to challenge the order of externment made by District Superintendent of Police (D.S.P.), Parbhani, acting as Sub Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.) in case No.1009/DCRB/Externment-2/19 and also against the order made by Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Appeal fled by petitioner bearing No.2019/Sapra/Desk-1/Police-1/Externment/Cr-45. Against the petitioner of the first proceeding, the order is made for the period of 18 months and it is in respect of four Tahsils of District Parbhani, one Tahsil of Beed District, one Tahsil of Latur District. The second proceeding is fled against the order of D.S.P. Parbhani in case No.1236/DCRB/ Externment-3/19 and also against the order made by Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Appeal fled by petitioner bearing No. 2019/Sapra/Desk-1/Police-1/Externment/Cr-51. Against the petitioner of the second proceeding the order of externment of two years is made and it is in respect of four Tahsils of Parbhani District, one Tahsil of Beed District and one Tahsil of Latur District. The appellate authority has confirmed the order of externment made by S.D.M. Both the orders are made under section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
3. In the first proceeding, in show cause notice issued under section 59 of the Act against Limbaji Ghobale, it was informed to him that action was proposed against him as he was a gang leader and similar action was proposed against two members of his gang. This action was proposed by Gangakhed Police Station. The Police Station had proposed to pass the order of externment in respect of four Districts like Parbhani, Hingoli, Nanded and Latur (not Beed). It was informed in show cause notice to Limbaji that against his gang as many as 10 crimes were registered in Gangakhed Police Station and out of them, seven crimes were registered against Limbaji, gang leader. The information about the offences registered as against Limbaji is given in show cause notice and it was as under :-
| Sr. No. | Police Station | Crime No. | Sections | Total accused | Date of incident | Court Case No. | Present position |
| 1. | Gangakhed | 87/05 | 147, 148, 149, 326, 324, 323, IPC | 07 | 04/07/05 | 176/05 09/08/05 | Acquitted u/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C. |
| 2. | Gangakhed | 210/10 | 341,323, 34, IPC | 03 | 19/08/10 | 06/11 05/01/11 | Acquitted as the dispute is settled out of Court. |
| 3. | Gangakhed | 185/12 | 307,323, 324, IPC & 135 of Bom.Police Act | 02 | 11/10/12 | 233/12 27/12/12 | Disposed of without full inquiry |
| 4. | Gangakhed | 67/13 | 452,384, 394,364(A),5 11,507, 506, 294,323, IPC | 03 | 25/03/13 | 133/13 05/08/13 | Pending in Court |
| 5. | Gangakhed | 3009/15 | 12(A), Mah. Gambling Act | 03 | 06/02/15 | 258/15 1/04/15 | Acquitted u/ s. 258 of Cr.P.C. as N.B.W. was not executed. |
| 6. | Gangakhed | 3025/15 | Mah. Gambling Act | 02 | 07/03/15 | 250/15 27/03/15 | Acquitted u/ s. 258 of Cr.P.C. as N.B.W. was not executed. |
| 7. | Gangakhed | 243/18 | 325, 324, 504, 506, 34 IPC | 02 | 22/08/18 | 167/18 03/10/18 | Pending in Court |
The aforesaid chart shows that only two cases fled in C.R. Nos. 67/13 and 243/18 were pending against Limbaji on the date of show cause notice i.e. on 17.1.2019. The contents of the present petition of Limbaji and the record show that in C.R. No. 243/18, R.C.C. No. 167/18 was fled by police and in that case, all the three accused came to be acquitted by the Trial Court on 4.5.2019. Similarly, in C.R. No. 67/13, Sessions Case No. 44/13 was fled by police and in that case also, all the three accused cam
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
