The petitioner has suffered an externment order under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. (In short, hereinafter called "The Act") in case No.1 of 2000, dated 14.11.2002, passed by District Magistrate, Indore. Having suffered this order, petitioner went up in appeal under section 9 of the Act before the State Government. By order dated 3.6.2003 (Annexure P-2) the State Government i.e. Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the externment order. It is against this appellate order, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Heard Smt. V. Phaye, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, I find no substance in this writ, which is worth admission.

In my opinion, the District Magistrate was perfectly justified in coming to its conclusion that the case for externment of the petitioner from Ratlam and adjacent Districts namely -- Dhar, Mandsour, Jhabua and Ujjain is made out. The petitioner was consistently found indulging in several heinous and serious criminal offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code right from the year 1991 till 2002. Almost every year from 1991 till date when show cause notice wa3 issued in the year 2002, the specific insistence of petitioner's criminal activities and the offences under which he was arrested and prosecuted were specifically set out in the show cause notice. The petitioner was duly granted an opportunity to rebut the allegations levelled against him, which he availed of. It is only thereafter the Collector (District Magistrate) passed an order directing his externment for a period of one year from the date of his order. In appeal, this order was affirmed.

In my opinion, the District Magistrate had enough material to come to a conclusion that a proper case for externment of petitioner from Indore' City is made out. It was a clear case where the petitioner was found engaged in a very serious offence and looking to his consistent criminal behaviour and mentality there is bound to be an apprehension that petitioner will continue to engage in same activities, if not directed to be externed from District. The conclusion reached, was justified. The order in question is to prevent the occurrence in future. Having seen the behaviour of the petitioner for the last ten years continuously one after another, engaging himself in criminal activity, no other order could be passed than the one under the provisions of The Act. In such cases, it is the discretion of the District Magistrate which must be based upon the material brought on record that matters. This Court in its writ jurisdiction would only see the jurisdictional aspect of the matter. It cannot now sit as a IInd Appellate Court to examine the inference to draw from the cases which the petitioner is facing in criminal Courts.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that in some of the cases petitioner is acquitted and hence, no order could be passed against him. It is not the case of the petitioner that the list of cases mentioned in the show cause were not at all registered against him, nor do they relate to him. In other words, it was not the case of the petitioner that he was not involved in the case cited by the State in show cause, but it was in relation to some other person. But that apart, acquittal in itself is no ground to set aside the externment order. Acquittal in any criminal/sessions trial can be on several ground and may be based on several reasons which may be technical in nature or it may be because of certain infirmities in the prosecution case, but the fact of accused involvement in the crime, his commission of the offence and his behavior can always be taken into account while deciding the case of his externment -- it being one of the most relevant factor in such type of cases.

Ye