Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, J.
Devki Nandan Bhagmare - Appellant
Versus
State of MP and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 15486 of 2020
Decided On : 10-03-2021
Externment - Challenge to order of externment under Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 - Section 5(b) and 6(c) - [Section 5(b), Section 6(c)] - The court discussed the criminal activities of the petitioner, the grounds for externment, and the satisfaction of conditions under the Act. Key legal provisions such as the requirement of clear and present danger, the antecedent history of the person, and the conditions for passing an order of externment were highlighted. The court found that the conditions for externment were duly satisfied and dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order of externment passed by the District Magistrate under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, citing incorrect premises and non-attribution of the relevant offence under Section 5(b) of the Act. The petitioner had a history of criminal activities and was involved in multiple cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Magistrate had sufficient material to invoke the provisions of the Act and that the conditions for externment were duly satisfied. The court dismissed the petition, stating that no case for interference in the impugned order was made out.
Issues: The issues revolved around the grounds for externment, the satisfaction of conditions under the Act, and the petitioner's challenge to the order based on incorrect premises and non-attribution of the relevant offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the requirement of clear and present danger, the antecedent history of the person, and the conditions for passing an order of externment. It emphasized that the criminal background of a person by itself is not sufficient to empower the authority to pass an order of externment unless it is found to cause alarm, danger, or harm to person or property.
Final Decision: The petition was found to be devoid of any merit and was accordingly dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Prakash Shrivastava, J.
Heard.
1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order of externment dated 26.08.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Seoni under Section 5(b) and 6(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of externment from District Seoni and adjoining districts for a period of one year. The petitioner is also aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner dated 23.09.2020 dismissing the appeal.
2. The facts in nutshell as stated in the petition are that the petitioner is resident of Seoni and on 07.08.2020 a report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Seoni stating that the petitioner is a habitual offender and a notorious and dangerous criminal of Seoni against whom several criminal cases have been registered pertaining to Arms Act, assault, attempt to murder, gambling etc. It is further stated that the petitioner is in the habit of getting into quarrel after being drunk and organizes gambling due to which the residents of the area feel unsafe. In pursuance to the said report, notice dated 07.08.2020 was issued to the petitioner which was served on him on 23.08.2020 requiring the petitioner to appear on 25.08.2020. The petitioner could not appear and the matter was proceeded ex-parte and impugned order of externment was passed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order was passed during the lock down period, therefore petitioner could not appear and that the order has been passed on incorrect premises and Section 5(b) of the Act is not attracted because no such offence has been registered. He further submits that the petitioner has already suffered the externment for a period of six months.
4. Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the list of cases registered against him and has submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against the petitioner and even during the externment he was involved in the criminal activities, therefore, no case for interference is made out.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Section 5(b) and Section 6(c) under which the impugned order has been passed reads as under:
(a) ....
(b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under Section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) or in the abetment of any such offence, and when in the opinion of the District Magistrate witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property.
6. Removal of persons convicted of certain offences - If a person has been convicted-
(a) ....
(b) ....
(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, as the case may be, from which he was directed to remove himself."
7. On the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the Superintendent of Police had submitted the report to the District Magistrate mentioning the criminal ac
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conditions for passing an order of externment under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 must be strictly satisfied, and the ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that for passing an order of externment under Madhya Pradesh Surksha Adhiniyam, 1990, both conditions mentioned under section 5(b)(i) and (ii) o....
The legal principle established is that for an externment order to be valid, the person's engagement in criminal activities must have close proximity to the date of the order, and witnesses must be u....
The past conduct of a person can be considered in making a detention order, and detailed reasons for externment orders are not required to protect the identity of witnesses unwilling to depose in pub....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that externment orders must satisfy the requirements of close proximity to the offense, objective consideration, and satisfaction of the District M....
The court ruled that externment orders require substantial evidence and must not infringe on fundamental rights without clear justification.
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
