JUDGMENT Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard Shri A.S. Manohar, the learned counsel for petitioner and Shri R.S. Nayak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State/respondents 1 to 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner challenges the order of the externment issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Wardha/respondent No. 2 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the prosecutions under the Bombay Prohibition Act have been considered while passing the impugned order of externment, which according to the petitioner could not have been taken into consideration. The other submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the prosecutions of 1991, 2003 and 2007, which are the stale prosecutions have been taken into consideration and therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated. Shri Manohar, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment in case of Ashok Kashinath Kale V/s. Shri Ravindra Jadhav and another reported in: 1983 (2) Bom. C.R. 763 in support of his submissions. 4. The prosecutions referred at serial Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the chart in the impugned order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate are under the Bombay Prohibition Act and could not have been considered for passing the externment order. The prosecutions shown at serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the above referred chart are of 1991, 2003 and 2007 and are stale prosecutions for the purpose of passing the externment order. It has been consistently held that the externment orders cannot be passed on the basis of the prosecutions under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The impugned orders are, therefore, unsustainable in law and have to be quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A). No orders as to costs.