Deepsingh @ Deepaksingh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another

Deepsingh @ Deepaksingh vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Nagpur Decided Jun 14, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1104696

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1104696
Court: Mumbai Nagpur High Court
Judge: M.L. Tahaliyani
Decided On: Jun 14, 2013
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No.153 of 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 56 â Comparative Citation: 2013 ALL MR (CRI) 3151

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Deepsingh @ Deepaksingh

Respondent

State of Maharashtra and Another

Excerpt

bombay police act, 1951 - section 56 â comparative citation: 2013 all mr (cri) 3151.....has submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted of all the charges at least in seven cases. 5. at the outset, it may be mentioned here that what is not there in the order cannot be considered. i have to go by what is stated in the order passed by respondent no.2 sub-divisional magistrate, hinganghat dated 31st july, 2012. as already stated, the order is based on eight offences allegedly committed by the petitioner under the bombay prohibition act. this court has repeatedly said that the externment order under section 56 of the bombay police act cannot be passed on the basis of cases pending under the bombay prohibition act. there is one case under section 379 of the indian penal code and one proceedings (istagasa) under section 110 of the code of criminal procedure against the applicant. if one deletes eight cases under the bombay prohibition act, what remains in the chart is one case under section 379 of the indian penal code and one case under section 110 of the code of criminal procedure. this, obviously, is not sufficient to pass externment order. such externment order cannot be sustained. the appeal filed by the petitioner before the government of maharashtra has already been dismissed. needless to state that since the original order is not maintainable the order passed by the appellate authority also cannot be maintained. 6. in the result, the petition succeeds. order passed by sub-divisional magistrate, hinganghat on 31st july, 2012 under section 56 of the bombay police act and the order passed by the secretary (special), home department, government of maharashtra on 22nd november, 2012 in appeal no.ext-2012/194/spl-3(b) are quashed and set aside. the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

Oral Judgment:

Heard

2. ADMIT.

3. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

4. The externment order is mainly based on eight prohibition cases mentioned in order dated 31st July, 2012. During the course of arguments it was submitted by Mr. Rode that there are 24 cases against the applicant under the Bombay Prohibition Act. Mr. Rai has submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted of all the charges at least in seven cases.

5. At the outset, it may be mentioned here that what is not there in the order cannot be considered. I have to go by what is stated in the order passed by respondent No.2 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hinganghat dated 31st July, 2012. As already stated, the order is based on eight offences allegedly committed by the petitioner under the Bombay Prohibition Act. This Court has repeatedly said that the externment order under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act cannot be passed on the basis of cases pending under the Bombay Prohibition Act. There is one case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and one proceedings (Istagasa) under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the applicant. If one deletes eight cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act, what remains in the chart is one case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and one case under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This, obviously, is not sufficient to pass externment order. Such externment order cannot be sustained. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Government of Maharashtra has already been dismissed. Needless to state that since the original order is not maintainable the order passed by the appellate Authority also cannot be maintained.

6. In the result, the petition succeeds. Order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hinganghat on 31st July, 2012 under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act and the order passed by the Secretary (Special), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra on 22nd November, 2012 in Appeal No.EXT-2012/194/SPL-3(B) are quashed and set aside.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Same Court & Year Mumbai Nagpur · 2013 Same Parties Deepsingh @ Deepaksingh vs State of Maharashtra and Another Same Subject Education Same Judge M.L. Tahaliyani

Education