Decided on May 02,2017

Balu @ Balasaheb Jagannath Jadhav Appellant
Divisional Commissioner and Ors. Respondents


S.S. Shinde, J. - (1.) Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(2.) This Petition is filed with the following prayer : "B. Quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 16.12.2016 passed by Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Appeal No.113/2016 and judgment and order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the Ld. Externment Tribunal/Ld. Superintendent of Police, Beed in File bearing No. LCB:01/MPA Section 55/2006/16 and for that purpose issue necessary order."
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, none of the offences mentioned in the show cause notice, can be said to be under Chapter XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that, the petitioner is Councillor of Beed Municipal Council for 10 years and is a respectable person in the society. 31 Offences shown registered against the petitioner are punishable under Section 12A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, which is bailable offence. In respect of offence bearing C.R. No.12/2016 registered with Police Station, Beed (City) under Sections 395, 504 and 506 of the I.P. Code, it is submitted that, the complainant therein himself has given the affidavit and on the basis of the said affidavit, the petitioner is enlarged on bail and now the investigation of the said crime is in progress. It is submitted that, the offences registered against the petitioner are with an ulterior motive and in some of the alleged offences, the petitioner is already acquitted. Respondent No.2 has initiated the externment proceedings out of vengeance, since in the month of January February, 2016 one Police Constable was trapped by the Anti Corruption Department on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner and other three persons. The said externment proceedings have been initiated so as to take revenge of said incident. It is submitted that, there are dependents upon the petitioner and he is the only bread earner of his family. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the Petition may be allowed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the reported judgments in the cases of Vijay Lalso Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra and others 2014 All MR (Cri) 1277, Shri Rajwardhan Babaso Patil v. Shri Vijaysinha Jadhav and anr. 2015 All MR (Cri) 2936 and also Umar Mohammed Maibari v. K.P. Gaikwad and another 1988(2) Bom. C.R. 724.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.