RAJPUT KARANSINH GAGJI Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE BHAVNAGAR
LAWS(GJH)-1988-6-13
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on June 24,1988

RAJPUT KARANSINH GAGJI Appellant
VERSUS
Sub -Divisional Magistrate,Bhavnagar And Another Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SURESH MOHAN SONAVANE VS. DEPUTY POLICE COMMISSIONER SURAT CITY [LAWS(GJH)-1991-1-31] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

PER GOKULAKRISHNAN C. J. : - - (1.)This Spl. Cri. Application is for quashing orders at Annexures -D and C which are externment orders passed against the petitioner herein. The show -cause notice was given as early as on 15 -11 -1987 and the externment order was passed by the Externing Authority on 21 -9 -1987. On appeal, the appellate authority has also confirmed the externment order. The show -cause notice and the Externment orders were based upon the conclusion of allegations mentioned in the show -cause notice. These allegations, no doubt, spell out the place and time of occurrence and relate to the offence coming under Chapters 12 and 17. Unfortunately, the externment under show -cause notice refers to the offences committed by the petitioner herein as coming under Chapters 12 and 17. We would have, looking to the specific allegations contained in the show - cause notice, condoned this defect also observing that it is a mistake which will not go to the root of the case and vitiate the proceedings. But the order of externment specifically states that the petitioner was committing acts involved in force and violence and he is also committing offences punishable under Chapters 12 and 17 of the I. P. Code. Thus it is clear from the externment order passed by Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Bhavnagar, that the externing authority has taken into consideration the offences punishable under Chapter 12 which according to the externing authority has been committed by the petitioner herein. There is absolutely no material to show that such an offence has been committed by the petitioner. In as much as externing authority has stated that such offences also have been committed by the petitioner, the order made by the externing authority clearly reveals non -application of mind, when especially no averments as regards any offence committed under Chapter 12 are made out. The externing authority has gone wrong in observing that such offences have been committed by the petitioner. In this connection, we can refer to the Gujarati version of the externment order which reads as follows:
Gujarati line This means that over and above the averments made, the petitioner has committed offences punishable under Chapter 12. Thus the whole order of externment has to be quashed, on the simple ground of non -application of mind by the externing authority by spelling out offences which are not at all on record.

(2.)For all these reasons, this order of externment has to be quashed and accordingly the same is quashed Rule is made absolute to the above extent. (ISS) Rule made absolute as indicated.
;


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