IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Yadav, J.
Manoj s/o Ramcharan Soni – Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4471 of 2016
Decided On : 31-08-2016
externment - District Magistrate's order under Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990 - Sections 3(b), 5(b) - Indian Penal Code, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Arms Act - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the 1990 Act, emphasizing the requirement of clear and present danger based on credible material to justify externment. The court also referred to past conduct and antecedent history as important factors in forming an opinion for externment. The judgment highlighted the need for strict compliance with legal safeguards and the balance between personal liberty and societal interests.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was externed from District Sagar and adjacent districts for one year based on 14 cases registered against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Arms Act. The petitioner challenged the externment, arguing lack of credible material and the old nature of the cases.
Finding of the Court:
The District Magistrate's findings of the petitioner's activities being dangerous and the affirmation of these findings by the Appellate Authority were upheld. The court found no perversity in the findings and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the justification for externment based on the petitioner's activities and the credibility of the cases against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the requirement of clear and present danger based on credible material for externment, the consideration of past conduct and antecedent history, and the need for strict compliance with legal safeguards.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, upholding the externment order.
Sanjay Yadav, J.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
2. Petitioner, being aggrieved of his externment from District Sagar and the adjacent Districts for a period of one year from 14.10.2015 by order of District Magistrate, Sagar on 13.10.2015 in exercise of his powers conferred under Sections 3(b) and 5(b) of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 1990 Act') and its affirmation in Appeal under Section 9 by order dated 18.02.2016, petitioner has filed this petition.
3. Action was initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of 1990 Act on the requisition by Superintendent of Police vide memo No. iq0v0@lkxj@jhMj@ftyk cnj@03@14 fnukad 13-02-2014. The requisition was that the petitioner is indulged in various illegal and other antisocial activities which has led to breach of peace and tranquility in the surroundings creating atmosphere of apprehension in law abiding citizens of the locality preventing them from lodging complaints and tendering evidence thereon.
4. Having satisfied that 14 cases under the provisions of Indian Penal Code under Sections 294, 506,147, 148, 149, 506 B, 452, 323, 307, 324, 427 of Indian Penal Code and under the Scheduled Caste and Section 3 (1)(x) and 3(2)(v) Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 25-B & 25/27 of the Arms Act were registered against the petitioner the District Magistrate caused notice on the petitioner. In reply whereof he stated that he is peace loving and law abiding citizen and that in most of the cases he has been exonerated as no witnesses have supported the prosecution story.
5. The District Magistrate after analysing each case found that the presence of the petitioner in Sagar and in adjacent districts will not be congenial to the public order, peace and tranquilities, accordingly directed his externment by order dated 13.10.2015. Petitioner preferred appeal there-against, which was dismissed on 18.02.2016.
6. Assailing the order of externment and the appellate order, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that there was no credible material before the Magistrate on the basis whereof a definite conclusion could be drawn that movements and acts of the petitioner in any manner is alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence. Furthermore, it is urged that, the cases on the basis whereof the District magistrate arrived at a conclusion holding the activities of the petitioner being dangerous were either old matters or the matters wherein the petitioner was already acquitted. On the basis of such matters, it is urged, the petitioner could not have been removed under Adhiniyam, 1990.
7. The respondent on their turn have justified their action of externing the petitioner in the public interest and to avoid untoward incident. Fourteen cases were registered against the petitioner and reported by the Superintendent of Police Sagar of which certain cases are still pending. It is being contended that these remaining cases also have the effect of causing dent to peace and tranquil situation as would led to breach of public peace and security.
8. District Magistrate recorded the following findings :-
esjs }kjk iqfyl v/kh{kd lkxj ds izfrosnu ,oa Fkkuk izHkkjh iqfyl Fkkuk jkgrx<+ ds izfrosnu ,oa lk{kh;ksa ds dFkuksa dk ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA iqfyl Fkkuk jkgrx<+ }kjk vukosnd ds }kjk fuEu vijk/k fd;s tkuk izfrosfnr fd;k x;k gSA%& vi% Ø0 87@02 /kkjk 341] 294] 324] 34 rk0fg0 dk vijk/k iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 163@03 /kkjk 341] 323] 294] 506] 34 rk0fg0 dk vijk/k iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 299@07 /kkjk 307] 294] 506] ch] rk0fg0 3@1&10] 3@2&5 ,l0lh0,l0Vh0 ,Dr rk0fg0 dk vijk/k iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 37@10 /kkjk 452] 294] 506] 427 ch] rk0fg0 dk vijk/k iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 38@10 /kkjk 25&ch vkElZ ,DV dk vijk/k iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vi0Ø0 183@12 /kkjk 452] 323] 294 rk0fg0 dk vijk/k iathc) dj U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;
Wasi Uddin Ahmed v. District Magistrate, Aligarh
Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra
Gurbachan Singh v. The State of Bombay
State of Maharashtra v. Salem Hasan Khan
Pandarinath Sridhar Rangne-kar v. Deputy Commissioner of Police
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.