1 913.wp.924.24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 924/2024 Atul s/o. Sheshrao Mungale Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R. R. Muddalwar, Advocate h/f. Mr. A. M. Chandekar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. N. Autkar, A.P.P. for Respondents/State. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 12/02/2025. . Heard. 2. The powers under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 are invoked against the petitioner thereby externing him vide impugned order dated 26.08.2024 for a period of six months from the jurisdiction of Wardha District. 3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 ought not to have been invoked against the petitioner particularly when the offences which are sought to be considered are under the provisions of Maharashtra Prohibition Act but for one under Indian Penal Code which is of 2022. It is claimed that even one offence under Indian Penal Code is considered against the petitioner, the same is a stale one i.e. of 2022 and in such an eventuality, the order impugned is not sustainable. A support is drawn from the Division Bench order of this Court in the matter of Ajay Prabhakar 2025:BHC-NAG:1567-DB 2 913.wp.924.24 Pahune Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 5241 particularly paragraph No.4. 4. As against above, the Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Autkar would urge that it is not only the offence under the Prohibition Act are taken into account but the offence being Crime No.386/2022 punishable under Sections 326, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is also considered and in such an eventuality, it cannot be said that the externment of the petitioner is contrary to the scheme of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. 5. We have considered the said submissions. 6. In all, eleven offences and six prohibitory orders are taken into account for issuing the externment order against the petitioner. 7. The order of externment was passed on 26.08.2024 thereby taking into account the prohibition action and the offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act of 1951. Even if the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code of 2022 is taken into account, the fact remains that the other offences which are considered are under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. In such an eventuality, the scheme contemplated under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is not adhered to by the respondent while passing the order of the externment as the offences punishable under Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act are taken into account. 8. In our view, the issue is rightly so pointed out to be covered by the judgment in the matter of Ajay 3 913.wp.924.24 Prabhakar Pahune (cited supra). That being so, the impugned order dated 26.08.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. The petition stands allowed in the above terms. (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) RGurnule