skn 1 WP-4294.2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4294 OF 2021

Sachin Paresh Pavaskar.

…

Petitioner.

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and others.

…

Respondents.

Mr.Gautam Kanchanpurkar for the Petitioner.

Ms.S.D.Shinde, APP for the Respondent- State.

CORAM :

NITIN JAMDAR AND

SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATE :

17 December 2021.

ORAL ORDER :

(Nitin Jamdar, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of

parties, taken up for disposal.

2.

By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated

9 April 2021 passed by Respondent No.3- Deputy Commissioner of

Police externing the Petitioner from Mumbai City, Mumbai

Suburban and Thane District for a period of two years. The

Petitioner has also challenged the order passed by Respondent No.2

dated 10 August 2021 dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner

under section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

SANJAY

KASHINATH

NANOSKAR

Digitally

signed by

SANJAY

KASHINATH

NANOSKAR

Date:

2021.12.23

16:03:56

+0530

skn 2 WP-4294.2021.doc

3.

A notice was issued to the Petitioner under section 56(1)

(a)(b) of the Act of 1951 on 18 November 2020 stating that it was

proposed to extern the Petitioner for a period of two years from the

Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban and Thane District. It is stated

that the externing authority has perused the proposal which shows

that from year 2019 the Petitioner is carrying out anti social and

criminal activities for which there are cognizable offences registered

in the Kasturba Marg Police Station. It is stated that the offences in

CR No.162/2019 under section 142, 143, 147, 149, 504, 323 of

Indian Penal Code and CR No.312/2019 110/2020 under sections

452, 427, 324, 323, 504 read with section 34 of IPC were registered

Kasturba Marg Police Station and CR No.312/2019 under sections

324, 323, 504, 427, 143, 147, 148, 149 of IPC with Dahisar Police

Station. It is then stated that in 2019 a Chapter Case No.90/2019

was filed and action under section 107 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 was done yet there has been no improvement in his

criminal activities. The externing authority has referred to in-

camera statements of two witnesses and based upon this material

reached to a subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner is required to

be externed in exercise of power under section 57(1) of the Act of

1951 externing the Petitioner from Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban

and Thane district for a period of two years.

skn 3 WP-4294.2021.doc

4.

The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate

Authority under section 60 of the Act of 1951. During the hearing

of the appeal the Petitioner was represented by the advocate. After

giving an opportunity, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal

by order dated 10 August 2021. Hence the Petitioner is before us.

5.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

statement of the witness recorded during the investigation of CR

No.110/2020 which has been considered against the Petitioner as the

circumstances show that the complainant had provoked the

Petitioner and this fact has not been considered by the externing

authority. It is also submitted that that the Petitioner is not named

in the state statement. The statement of the informant in CR

No.110/2020 is on record. The informant had asked one Sushil

Pandit as to why he comes and stops near the bathroom of the

Complainant’s house. At that time verbal altercations ensured and

the informant went back to his house. On the same day i.e. 6 March

2020, in the night, Sushil Pandit and others with the Petitioner

ransacked the shops outside the house and assaulted people with fist

and blows and article