Roopchand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Khandwa under Section 5(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam'1990 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 1990") as affirmed by the order dated 12.02.2019 by the Commissioner, Indore by dismissing the appeal.

The Superintendent of Police, Khandwa send a request the District Magistrate Khandwa for initiating proceedings under Section 5 (a) & (b) of the Act of 1990 against the petitioner. As per the information given by the Superintendent of Police, Khandwa as many as 19 cases under the different provisions of Indian Penal Code & Excise Act have been registered against the petitioner from the year 2002-2018. As per opinion of S.P., Khandwa, criminal activities of the petitioner has been increased day by day, therefore, he is liable to be externed for a period of one year. The District Magistrate has registered a Case No.41/2018 against the petitioner and issued show cause notice to him. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply by contending that he had already been externed for the period of one year in the year 2010 on the basis of criminal cases registered from the year 2002 to 2008 and thereafter only 2-3 minor cases have been registered against him in which fine has been imposed. He is suffering from paralysis and his wife is pregnant. The learned District Magistrate did not found the reply to be satisfactory and on the basis of material available in record, he has passed the order of one year externment under Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed by the Commissioner. Hence, the present writ petition before this Court.

Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned District Magistrate as well as Commissioner, Indore Division have failed to examine the provisions of Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990. As a matter of fact, there was no material before them to come to the conclusion that petitioner was influencing the witnesses and they are not coming before the Court to give evidence against him. He has placed reliance over the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel Vs. State of M.P. & Others, reported in 2009(4) MPLJ 434.

Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned GA for the respondent/State submits that there are continuous criminal activities of the petitioner from the year 2002 to 2018 and as many as 19 cases have been registered against him and there is no improvement in his conduct, therefore, he has rightly been externed for the period of one year. Out of one year, 8 months have already passed, therefore, no interference is called for and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Keeping in view the physical condition of the petitioner, vide order dated 22.03.2019, the District Magistrate has granted one months' time to the petitioner to reside in his house at Khandwa. The petitioner has already undergone 8 months period of externment. It is correct that after 2010, four cases have been registered against him. Recently, only three cases in Excise Act and Gambling Act have been registered against him. In one case, trial has already been concluded and in other case i.e. registered under Section 294 of IPC, trial is pending.

As per the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Ashok Kumar Patel(supra) there must be sufficient material before the authorities to pass the order under Section 5 (b) of the Act of 1990, but keeping in view the fact the continuous involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities from the year 2002 to 2018 and there is no improvement in his conduct, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order on merits, but looking to the physical condition of the petitioner and period of externment already undergone by him, I deem it fit to reduce the period of 1 year externment to the period already undergone.

Hence, petition is allowed in part.

No order as to cost.