1. By filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.9.2005 passed by the second respondent District Magistrate Rewa externing the petitioner from districts of Rewa, Satna, Sidhi, Shahdol, Umaria and Anuppur for a period of one year and the appellate order dated 24.10.2005 passed by the third respondent Commissioner, Rewa by which his appeal has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 8.8.2005 issued by the second respondent under section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for short 'Adhiniyam'), mentioning the reasons for proposed order to be passed against him. The petitioner submitted his reply on affidavit denying and explaining the allegations levelled against him. After giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the second respondent held that the petitioner is liable to be externed and consequently passed the order of externment. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal under section 9 of the Adhiniyam before the third respondent. The third respondent by order dated 24.10.2005 dismissed the petitioner's appeal No. 480/04-05. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition.

3. The petitioner contends that from the show cause notice and the reasons recorded by the second respondent affirmed by the third respondent neither a case under section 5 (b) nor under section 6 (c) has been made out. He accordingly prayed for quashment of the impugned orders of both the authorities.

4. The respondents contend that from the contents of show cause notice and the report of the Superintendent of Police it is clear that the action proposed against the petitioner was under section 5 (b) as well as under 6 (c) of the Adhiniyam. They also contend that the second respondent after going through the entire material available against the petitioner and after considering his reply has rightly passed the impugned order of externment, which is not liable for any interference in this petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the annexures.

6. Having gone through the impugned order of externment so far as it relates to action under section 5 (b) of the Adhiniyam, I find that on 26.2.1993 an offence was registered against the petitioner under sections 448, 294, 506- B and 507/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial the petitioner was acquitted of the said offences vide judgment dated 18.2.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa in Criminal Case No.

115/2001. The other offences forming basis of externment under section 5 (b) of the Adhiniyam are the offences under section$ 110; 116 (3), 117 and 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These are the offences of petty nature. Out of the 7 offences of such petty nature 4 are of the year 1993, two are of the year 2002 and one is of the year 2004.

7. Thus, on the basis of such old and stale offences under the Indian Penal Code in which the petitioner has been acquitted and also the petty offences under sections 107, 110, 116 (3), 151 of the Criminal procedure Code, the order of externment under section 5 (b) of the Adhiniyam cannot be sustained. See Bela @ Iqbal v. Additional Collector, Indore [1996 CrLR MP 72]. In case of Ayub Khan v. State of M.P. [1994 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 168] a Division Bench of this Court has observed that the powers of externment are to be exercised sparingly with care and circumspection. They cannot be used for punishing a man for his past deeds. In view of the aforesaid legal position the petitioner's externment under section 5 (b) of the Adhiniyam cannot be sustained and is quashed.

8. As regards the order of externment passed under section 6 (c) of the Adhiniyam it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been convicted thrice of an offence within a period of three years under Public Gambling Act, 1867. Howev