JUDGMENT - Dr. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This Criminal Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of externment, being externment proposal No. 8/92 dated 26th March, 1994 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sub-Division, Alibaug. The Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra (Appeal and Security), Home Department, Bombay by his order dated 26th August, 1994 confirmed the externment order with slight modifications in Appeal No. Ext. 2194/82-SPL-5. 2. It is the contention of Mr. Kachare, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner/accused, that since the time of two years has expired, this petition has become infructuous. He, however, admits that after the order was served upon the petitioner, the petitioner did not remove himself from the area, and he in fact obtained stay order from this Court on 30th January, 1994. 3. Mr. Salvi, the learned A.P.P. for respondents, on the other hand, brings to my notice the judgment of this Court, reported in 1991(4) Bom.C.R. 233 (Sharad Chandanlal v. State of Maharashtra)1, in which it has been held that the order of externment shall cease to have effect on the day when period specified in the order commencing from day the externee removes himself from the said locality expires, and that, grant of stay by the High Court or by the State Government, has no effect to extend outer limit fixed by section 58 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 for operation of the order. Section 58 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 states that, "a direction made under sections 55, 56, 57 or 57-A with respect to removal of certain persons from that area or any part thereof or not to enter any particular area or such area, as the case may be, shall be for such period as may be specified in the said direction, and shall, in no case, exceed a period of two years from the date on which the person removes himself or is removed from the area. (emphasis supplied) district or part aforesaid or from the specified area, as the case may be." In the present case at hand, admittedly, the petitioner did not remove himself from the area concerned. Therefore, this decision is not applicable to the present case. 4. Mr. (emphasis supplied) district or part aforesaid or from the specified area, as the case may be." In the present case at hand, admittedly, the petitioner did not remove himself from the area concerned. Therefore, this decision is not applicable to the present case. 4. Mr. Salvi, the learned A.P.P. also tenders for my perusal a report dated 10th July, 2000 given by Inspector of Police, Poinad Police Station, District Raigad, with respect to the petitioner. The same is taken on record. Perused the same. In the said report, the Inspector of Police, Poinad Police Station, has stated that during the pendency of the present writ petition, another offence under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the petitioner with Poinad Police Station at Alibaug. Mr. Salvi, the learned A.P.P., therefore, submits that in view of the Supreme Court judgment reported in A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2225 (Ramnarain Singh v. State of Bihar)2, this subsequent event has to be considered by the Court, and in fact, this fact about one more offence being registered against the petitioner, during the pendency of the present petition should not be overlooked. He submits that in the above mentioned case, the Supreme Court has stated that the Court can drop proceedings under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and it is not precluded from taking into account the subsequent events, and if the material on record discloses that because of the happening of a subsequent event, the danger of breach of peace has disappeared, the Court can drop the proceeding and discharge the person proceeded against. Mr. Salvi, the learned A.P.P. submits that on the same principle, if the subsequent event discloses the commission of offence on the part of the accused, against whom, preventive proceedings have already been initiated, this fact also has to be taken into consideration when the petitioner approaches this Court for getting the proceedings quashed. 5. After hearing both the Advocates and after perusing the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2225 (supra) and judgment of this Court reported in 1992 Mh.L.J. 1233 (supra), I find substance in the submissions made by Mr. Salvi, the learned A.P.P. Under these circumstances, the writ petition will have to be dismissed. Hence, the following order : Criminal Writ Petition No. 1415 of 1994 is dismissed. Rule discharged. Salvi, the learned A.P.P. Under these circumstances, the writ petition will have to be dismissed. Hence, the following order : Criminal Writ Petition No. 1415 of 1994 is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim order dated 30th November, 1994 is hereby vacated. Writ petition dismissed. -----