Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/2041/2006 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2041 of 2006
=========================================================
ILYAS
@ LAKHLO YUSUFBHAI FULANI - Applicant(s)
Versus
THE
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DM AHUJA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR DM AHUJA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 28/12/2006
ORAL
ORDER
1.
The petitioner herein has challenged the order of externment dated
31.8.05 respondent no.2 under section 56(C ) of the Bombay Police
Act, 1951, whereby the petitioner was externed from the limits of
Rajkot city, Rajkot Rural, Surendranagar and Jamnagar districts for a
period of two years.
2.
The externing authority observed that the petitioner is a head-strong
person and is indulged in criminal activities including extorting
money from Contractors.
3.
The externment order was carried in appeal by the petitioner by way
of Appeal which came to be dismissed.
4.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner assailed the impugned orders on
the ground that there was inordinate delay in passing externment
order.The impugned order has been passed on 31.8.05 and therefore
there is a delay of three and half years. He further submitted that
there is only one offence registered against the petitioner and
therefore such a harsh punish should not have been imposed by the
authority.
5.
Learned AGP appearing for the respondents submitted that the
petitioner is in the habit of indulging in activities which are
detrimental to public order and therefore the authority has rightly
passed passed the order of externment and no interference may be
caused in this petition.
6.
As a result of hearing and perusal of the record it is clear that the
alleged offence was in the year 2004 and the impugned order has been
passed in the year 2005. It is also required to be noted that only
one offence has been registered against the petitioner. Merely by
registering one offence against the petitioner it cannot be said that
the petitioner activities of the petitioner are detrimental to public
order and he would continue to do his activities. Looking to the fact
that this was the first offence committed by the applicant under the
Act, he ought to have been given some room for self improvement and a
liberal view should have been taken by the competent authority. I am
therefore of the view that externment of two years is harsh looking
to the offence alleged against the applicant. On the overall facts
and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the
externment order imposing a penalty of one year would have been just
and proper.
8.
In view of the above, the application is partly allowed. The
externment period of two years imposed by the authority is reduced to
one year. The impugned order is modified accordingly. However, it is
made clear that if the applicant indulges in the same offence again,
it will be open to the authority to pass appropriate orders
considering his past background and in such event this order shall
not be treated as precedent even for the applicant for future
conduct. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(K.S.JHAVERI,J)
mary//
Top