JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by :

(i) Order dated 7.6.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, W.P. No.29624/2022 Ujjain whereby he has been externed for a period of one from the territory of District Ujjain and its nearby revenue districts.

(ii) Order dated 12.12.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ujjain whereby the appeal preferred by him has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been externed only on the basis of list of criminal cases registered against him, but the requirement of section 5(a) and 5(b) of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam has not been fulfilled. None of the witnesses came forward to say that the petitioner was threatening them to give evidence in his favour. The petitioner has already undergone 9 months of the period of externment. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish the bond for the remaining period of 3 months to maintain his good conduct.

3. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State opposes the prayer by submitting that as many as 26 criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner. No interference is called for and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

5. It is settled law that order under section 5(a) & 5(b) of the Act of 1990 cannot be passed mechanically just because the number of criminal cases are registered against any person.

6. So far as the requirement of section 5(a) of the Act of 1990 is concerned, whenever it appears to the District Magistrate that the movements or act of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to a person or property, the District Magistrate may by an order in writing direct such person to conduct himself to prevent violence or to remove himself outside the district or any part thereof or such area and not to enter or return to the said district from which he was directed to remove himself. Therefore, before passing an order under section 5(a) District Magistrate is required to record its satisfaction that the movement or act of any person because of his past and present criminal activities may cause danger or harm to person or property.

7. Likewise before passing any order under section 5(b) of Act of 1990 is concerned, two conditions must be satisfied. Firstly, there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged in or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or in the abatement of such offence. Secondly, in the opinion of the District Magistrate witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against such person by reason of apprehension of their safety of person or property.

8. While passing the impugned order the District Magistrate did not record its satisfaction as per the requirement of section 5 (b) of the Act of 1990. The district magistrate has passed the order under section 5 without specifying that the case of the petitioner falls under section 5(a) or 5(b) because the requirement of passing the order under aforesaid provisions are altogether different, therefore, the material available before the district magistrate and the evidence came to the effect that the order is to be treated under section 5(a) of the Act of 1990. No satisfaction has been recorded as required under section 5(b) of the Act of 1990, therefore, the period of one-year externment is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to furnish a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) before the District Magistrate for maintaining his good conduct for the remaining period.

With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.