Judgment 70-Cr.WP-445-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 445 OF 2025 … 1] Manjula Dilip Jadhav, Aged about 47 yrs, Occ: Labour, R/o Vadar Jhopadpatti, Arvi Naka, Wardha. 2] Akash Deepak Jaisinghani, Aged about 38 yrs, Occ: Labour, R/o Poddar Bagicha, Ramnagar, Wardha. ... PETITIONERS - - V E R S U S - - 1] State of Maharashtra, Through Superintendent of Police, Wardha. 2] Sub Divisional Police Officer, Wardha City, Dist. Wardha. ... RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Shoeb Khan, Advocate h/f Mr. M.N. Ali, Advocate for the Petitioners. Ms. S.N. Thakur, A.P.P. for the Respondents/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2025. PIYUSH MAHAJAN 2025:BHC-NAG:9011 Judgment 70-Cr.WP-445-2025 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms. S.N. Thakur, learned A.P.P. waives service for respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the order dated 12/02/2025 passed by respondent No.1-Superintendent of Police, Wardha and confirmation order dated 06/05/2025 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, whereby, the respondent No.1 has externed the petitioners under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (“the Act of 1951”). The petitioners are being termed as a gang, and therefore, an action is taken against them under Section 55 of the Act of 1951. The learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are externed only on basis of offences committed by them under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. He further submits that as per the settled position of law, the offences PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 70-Cr.WP-445-2025 3 under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act cannot form basis to invoke the provisions of the Act of 1951 and thereby on this short ground, he prayed to allow the petition. So as to substantiate the aforesaid contention, learned counsel has relied on the following judgments of this Court:- (i) Sameer @ Pappu Narendra Mendhe VS State of Maharashtra and Another, (Cr. W.P. No.183/2025), decided on 02/05/2025. (ii) Majid Khan @ Majju Haimd Khan VS State of Maharashtra and Another, (Cr. W.P. No.413/2022), decided on 29/08/2022. (iii) Deepak Laxman Dongre VS State of Maharashtra and Others, 2022 AIR (SCW) 1241. 4. Per contra, learned APP vehemently submits that Wardha District was declared as a Dry District in the year 1975. The activities of the petitioners as a gang in a Dry District would tantamount to committing an offence against the Society which offence is being committed in an organized manner. Therefore, the activities of the petitioners are squarely covered under the provisions PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 70-Cr.WP-445-2025 4 of Section 55 of the Act of 1951 and thereby, he supported the order of externment and the confirmation order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur. 5. I have heard both the sides at length and also gone through the case laws which are cited by the learned counsel for petitioners. Upon perusal of the impugned order and the case laws, it can be gathered that the petitioners are facing criminal trial for the offences registered under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. It seems from the record that so far as, Manjula Dilip Jadhav is concerned, there are as many as 5 cases registered again her under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and she is termed as a gang leader. So far as, Akash Deepak Jaisinghani, is concerned, he is termed as a member of gang and 9 crimes are registered against him out of the same 6 crimes are registered only under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and three crimes are registered under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and the Motor Vehicle Act. The judgments of this Court unequivocally clarifies the position, so far as, externment either under Section 55 or 56 of the Act of 1951, is PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 70-Cr.WP-445-2025 5 concerned that the offences under provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act cannot form basis to invoke the provisions of Section 55 or 56 of the Act of 1951. It would be useful to refer to the judgment in the case of Sagarsingh Kesharsingh Bawari Vs. Ministry of Home Department and others, 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 4407, wherein it is held as under:- “2…...all other prosecutions are under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act and Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887. The prosecution under Section 326 and 324 read with Section 34 is of 2010. The consideration of the prosecutions under the Bombay Prohibhing Act and Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 by the Authority vitiates the impugned order, inasmuch as it is the settled law that for the purposes of passing the externment order, these prosecutions cannot be taken into consideration.” The aforesaid position is reiterated in the case of Paramjitsingh @ Jentil Sardar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 ALL MR (Cri) 1284 wherein this Court in paragraph 13 has observed as under:- “13. It would be necessary to go through the relevant record to examine the correctness of the orders impugned PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 70-Cr.WP-445-2025 6 in this petition. It is undisputed that the crimes at Sr. Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 were registered under the Section 65(e) of the Prohibition Act. The crime at Sr. No.1 was registered under Section 142 of the Act of 1951. It is settled legal position that such crimes cannot be taken into consideration to justify the externment order. In this connection, useful reference can be made to the decision in the case of Vijay @ Tyson S/o. Namdeorao Dongre .v/s. The State of Maharashtra and Others3. In this case, it is held that the crime registered under Section 65(e) of the Prohibition Act for selling, buying and possessing intoxicant could not be said to be prejudicial to the public peace, tranquility and as such, cannot be made the foundation for externment. It is to be noted that in view of Section 56 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act of 1951, the offences registered under the provisions of the Prohibition Act and the Act of 1951 could not be said to be an acts as contemplated or understood by the Clause (a) and (b) of Section 56 (1) of the Act of 1951. Therefore, while deciding the fate of the impugned order, out of the seven crimes these five crimes ought to have been excluded while forming the subjective satisfaction by the respondent No.2. Perusal of the externment order would show that those crimes were registered in the year 2021. The last crime was registered on 08.08.2021. Perusal of the externment order would show that for the purpose of recording subjective satisfaction for the purpose of passing PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 70-Cr.WP-445-2025 7 externment order these five crimes were relied upon as an objective material. It is seen that on the basis of these five crimes the live link between those crimes and the externment proceeding was sought to be established. In my view, the approach of the respondent No.2 was totally against the spirit of Section 56 of the Act of 1951. In my view, this is important aspect to conclude that the subjective satisfaction was dented.” Therefore, considering the above exposition of law, it is crystal clear that the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act cannot be invoked for externing petitioners, and this settled position of law was conveniently ignored by the authorities. It is true that all the offences against the petitioners are registered in Wardha District which is declared as a Dry District since the year 1975. However, in view of the settled position, the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act cannot be invoked to extern petitioners, whether it is declared as a Dry District or not. Further, it is borne out of record that for committing offences in a Dry District, already First Information Reports are registered against these petitioners and the same are pending for adjudication which would be taken care by the concerned Court. PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 70-Cr.WP-445-2025 8 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the authorities have miserably failed to take into consideration the above aspect of the matter, and therefore, committed gross error by externing petitioners from Wardha District for 2 years. In this view of the matter, following order is passed:- (i) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The Impugned order dated 12/02/2025 passed by Respondent No.1-Superintendent of Police, Wardha in Criminal Case No. 23/2025 and order dated 06/05/2025 passed by Divisional Commissioner in Appeal No. 11/2025 are hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Rule is made absolute in above terms. [ M. M. NERLIKAR, J ] PIYUSH MAHAJAN