Skip to content


Narayan Motiram Khilnani Vs. State of Maharashtra - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Writ Petition No. 377 of 1985
Judge
Reported in1986(1)BomCR122
ActsBombay Police Act, 1950 - Sections 59
AppellantNarayan Motiram Khilnani
RespondentState of Maharashtra
Appellant AdvocateS.M. Gupte, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateP.M. Vyas, P.P.
Excerpt:
- indian evidence act, 1872 section 24: [v.s. sirpurkar & deepak verma,jj] dying declaration - multiple murders by accused - dying declaration not implicating one accused - evidence of eye witnesses however completely fixing his criminal liability ocular evidence found credible held, absence of his name in dying declaration would be of no help to accused. - this is also contrary to the provisions of section 59 of the bombay police act as well as the principles of natural justice......j.1. in this case the petitioner has challenged the order of externment issued by the deputy commissioner of police, crime branch, c.i.d., greater bombay dated 1-4-1985.2. we have heard shri gupte the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have gone through the record produced before us. from the bare perusal of the show cause notice, it is clear that the reliance is placed in the said show cause notice on, in all 23 convictions recorded upto 28th november, 1978. earlier 22 convictions are of the year 1972. it is pertinent to note that in the year 1981 an order of externment was passed against the petitioner externing him for a period of two years which must be obviously on the basis of those very cases. this position is not disputed by the deputy commissioner of.....
Judgment:

C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. In this case the petitioner has challenged the order of externment issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Greater Bombay dated 1-4-1985.

2. We have heard Shri Gupte the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and have gone through the record produced before us. From the bare perusal of the show cause notice, it is clear that the reliance is placed in the said show cause notice on, in all 23 convictions recorded upto 28th November, 1978. Earlier 22 convictions are of the year 1972. It is pertinent to note that in the year 1981 an order of externment was passed against the petitioner externing him for a period of two years which must be obviously on the basis of those very cases. This position is not disputed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police in his affidavit. However, it is stated by him that four more cases of cheating are pending against the petitioner before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay bearing Nos. 1980/P of 1983. A reference is also made to some other cases of the year 1983-84 in the affidavit. In para 9, C.R. No. 354 of 1985 is also referred to. In the affidavit it is stated by the Deputy Commissioner of Police that he had also considered subsequent activities of the petitioner wherein he had indulged in the similar types of cases. If this is so, then in our opinion the order of externment must get vitiated because none of these cases are referred to in the show cause notice. Therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity to show cause against the said allegations. Cases referred to in the show cause notice in the last para, are also not referred to in the final order of externment. These cases, do not find place in the show cause notice or final order. In the affidavit, it is stated, that they were considered while passing the order of externment. Thus the Deputy Commissioner of Police has relied upon the cases which are not the subject matter of the show cause notice or the final order and has taken into consideration the matters which are stale and which are subject matters of the earlier externment order. This is wholly impermissible in law. This is also contrary to the provisions of section 59 of The Bombay Police Act as well as the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bombay dated 1st April, 1985 is wholly illegal and deserves to be set aside.

3. In the result, therefore, Rule is made absolute. The order of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D. Greater Bombay, dated 1st April, 1985, is set aside.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //