Back
2010 Supreme(MP) 244
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Ajit Singh, J.
Sunil alias Sannu
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
Writ Petition No. 9573/2009
Decided On: 18.03.2010
The court established that prior convictions can be considered in passing an externment order and emphasized the importance of providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Headnote:
externment - gaming activities - Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, Section 6(c) - Public Gambling Act, 1867, Section 4-A - Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, Section 6(c) - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Chapter XII, XVI, XVII, Section 506, 509 - Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, Section 3, 4 - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an externment order passed against him for gaming activities under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and the appellate order rejecting his appeal. The District Magistrate relied on the petitioner's repeated convictions under Section 4-A of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 to pass the externment order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Magistrate did not commit any illegality in considering the petitioner's prior convictions while passing the externment order. It also held that the petitioner was given proper opportunity of hearing before the order was passed.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of considering prior convictions in passing the externment order and whether the petitioner was given proper opportunity of hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles that allow consideration of prior convictions and emphasized that the petitioner was given a proper opportunity of hearing.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments.
Ajit Singh, J.
1. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of order 30-3-2009, Annexure P-2, passed against him for externment by the District Magistrate, Raisen (Respondent No. 3) and the appellate order dated 20-8-2009, Annexure P-1, the Commissioner, Bhopal Division (Respondent No. 2) rejecting his appeal.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that on 27-6-2008 the Superintendent of Police, Raisen, submitted a report to the District Magistrate about the gaming activities, committed by the Petitioner from 2004, with a request that an externment order be passed against him in exercise of powers under Section 6(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (in short, "the Adhiniyam, 1990"). The State then also examined Station Officer Kotwali G.L. Ariwal, Assistant Sub-Inspector Kotwali Ram Singh Thakur and Govind Singh Raghuvanshi in support of its case. All these witnesses stated that Petitioner was involved in gaming activities and despite his repeated conviction under Section 4-A of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (in short, "the Act") he is continuing to engage himself in gaming activities. Being prima facie satisfied with the allegations of gaming activities made against the Petitioner, the District Magistrate served a show-cause notice dated 21-11-2008 on him as required under Section 8(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1990. The Petitioner submitted his reply dated 5-1-2009 to the show-cause notice and denied the allegation of involvement in gaming activities. He, however, did not examine any witness in support of his defence and also did not make a request to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the State. The District Magistrate, on coming to a conclusion that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen, has convicted the Petitioner in five different cases under Section 4-A of the Act and despite conviction Petitioner is continuing to engage himself in gaming activities, directed his externment for a period of one year from District Raisen and contiguous districts such as Bhopal, Vidisha, Sagar, Sehore, Hoshangabad and Narsinghpur. The order of externment was passed under Section 6(c) of the Adhiniyam, 1990. Aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner but it was dismissed vide order dated 20-8-2009.
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that there was no material before the District Magistrate for passing the order of externment under Section 6(c) of the Adhiniyam, 1990 and the District Magistrate committed an illegality in relying upon conviction of cases under Section 4-A of the Act against the Petitioner which were registered prior to 2006 because Section 4-A was included in Section 6 (c) of the Adhiniyam, 1990 with effect from 5-9-2006.
4. The relevant extract of Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, 1990, reads as under:
6. Removal of persons convicted of certain offences.- If a person has been convicted:
(a) of an offence,:
(i) under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under Section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860); or
(ii) under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (22 of 1955); or
(b) twice, of an offence under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (104 of 1956); or
(c) thrice, of an offence within a period of three years under Section 3 or 4 or 4-A of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (3 of 1867), in its application to the State of Madhya Pradesh;
the District Magistrate may, if he has reason to believe that such person is likely again to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to that for which he was convicted direct such person by an order to remove himself outside the district or part thereof or such area and any district or districts or any part thereof, contiguous thereto by such route and within such time as the District Magistrate may order and not to enter or return to the District or part thereof or such area and such contiguous district or part thereof,
