Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 410 (MP)

Vinod s/o Devnarayan Meena v. State of M. P.

2016-05-13

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2016
ORDER : Prakash Shrivastava, J. Heard finally with consent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved with the order of externment dated 22-6-2015 whereby the petitioner has been externed from the district Shajapur and the adjoining districts under section 5(a) and (b) of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 as also the order dated 29-9-2015, whereby the Commissioner has dismissed the appeal against the order of externment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of externment is based upon the old and stale cases, therefore, the same cannot be sustained in view of the settled legal position. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the order of externment has been passed by the District Magistrate taking note of the 11 cases which are said to have been registered against the petitioner. A perusal of those cases reveals that the cases from Serial No. 1 to 9 are for a period prior to 2012. The said offences are of petty nature. So far as the case at Serial No. 10 is concerned, the said case does not relate to any offence but it is relating to Istgasa filed under section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case at Serial No. 11 also does not relate to commission of any offence. It has further been pointed out that out of the 11 cases, only the case at serial No. 8 in Crime No. 201/10 is pending and in rest of the matters either the petitioner has been acquitted or they have been compromised or the fine has been imposed. 6. The perusal of the impugned order clear reveals that the border of externment has been passed against the petitioner based upon the old and stale cases. This Court in the matter of Asaf Ali v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2006 (3) MPLJ 592 taking note of the earlier judgment in the matter has held that a person cannot be punished for his past deeds and in similar circumstances the order of externment based upon the old cases was set aside. This Court in the matter of Asaf Ali (supra) has held as under :— “6. This Court in the matter of Asaf Ali (supra) has held as under :— “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 527/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial the petitioner was acquitted of the said offence 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 sections 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 Bala @ Iqbal v. Additional Collector, Indore, 1996 Cr. L.R. M.P. 72. In case of Ayub Khan v. State of M.P., 1994 (1) VIBHA 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.” 7. Same is the view taken by this Court in the matter of Pappu @ Pramod v. State of M.P., reported in 2014 (2) MPLJ 621 . 8. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate in respect of the externment of the petitioner as also the order passed by the Commissioner in appeal cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. 9. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. 10. C. C. as per rules.