1

CRI.WP259-18

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 259/2018

(WASIM KHAN @ BABLU YUSUF KHAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. DY.C.P.,

ZONE-1, AMRAVATI & ANOTHER)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

Court's or Judge's orders

appearances, Court's orders of directions

and Registrar's orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shri M.N. Ali, counsel for the petitioner.

Mrs. K.S. Joshi, Additional P.P. for the respondents.

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND

MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : MARCH 27

, 2018.

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order

of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati, dated 31.08.2017

externing the petitioner along with the other members of the gang

from Amravati City and Amravati Rural for a period of two years.

Inter alia, the impugned order is challenged by the

petitioner on two grounds. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner

that though three show cause notices were served on the petitioner

under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, in none of the

notices, more offences than twelve were said to have been pending

against the petitioner but in the impugned order, the externing

authority has referred to the pendency of nineteen offences. It is

submitted that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to show

cause in regard to the other offences. It is submitted that the order

suffers from non-application of mind, inasmuch as, the show cause

notice refers to twelve offences and the impugned order makes a

reference to nineteen. It is submitted that neither the copies of the

in-camera statements of the witnesses recorded by the externing

authority were supplied to the petitioner nor was the gist of the in-

camera statements mentioned in the show cause notices served on

the petitioner.

2

CRI.WP259-18

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor does not

dispute that though the show cause notices mentioned about the

pendency of at the most twelve offences against the petitioner, the

impugned order makes a reference to the pendency of nineteen

offences. It is also fairly admitted that the gist of the in-camera

statements of the witnesses is not mentioned in the show cause

notices served on the petitioner.

The impugned order is liable to be quashed and set

aside as it suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. Though

the last show cause notice speaks about the pendency of twelve

offences against the petitioner, the externing authority has taken

into consideration the pendency of nineteen offences. The

petitioner did not have an opportunity to show cause against the

pendency of seven offences. Also, though there is a requirement in

law to supply the gist of the in-camera statements of the witnesses

recorded by the externing authority to the proposed externee, in the

instant case, there is no mention about what the witnesses had

stated before the externing authority in their in-camera statements.

In the absence of the mention of the gist of the in-camera

statements of the witnesses in the show cause notices, the petitioner

could not have effectively replied to the show cause notices. In the

circumstances of the case, the impugned order is liable to be

quashed and set aside.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is

allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Order

accordingly.

JUDGE

JUDGE

APTE