1 35-Cr.WP-873-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 873 OF 2025 Jagdish S/o Yencha Pawar -- VERSUS -- The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and Others __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Ms. Rani G. Nitnaware, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Bhagwan M. Lonare, A.P.P. for the Respondents/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 20, 2025. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. 2. The order dated 10/09/2025 passed by respondent No.3 and the order dated 16/10/2025 passed by the respondent No.1 is under challenge, wherein the petitioner was externed by the respondent No.3 for a period of six months from Nagpur District and in appeal, the respondent No.1 has modified order to the extent of three months. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that stale offences are considered which are registered in the year 2011 and 2023. The offences from serial Nos.3 to 6 are registered under 2025:BHC-NAG:12617 2 35-Cr.WP-873-2025 the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, and therefore, crimes from serial Nos.3 to 6 cannot form the basis to extern the petitioner, as it is beyond the scope of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act. Therefore, she submits that on these counts the order externing the petitioner cannot sustain. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submits that the petitioner is indulging in illicit liquor activities. Not only that serious offences under Sections 323, 324 and 326 IPC were registered against the petitioner in the year 2023 and also offence under Section 307 IPC was registered in the year 2011, wherein, the petitioner was convicted and was directed to undergo imprisonment for one year. He further submits that a detailed order has been passed by the externing authority, and therefore, no interference is required. He further submits that even the Divisional Commissioner has taken a lenient view and reduced the period from six months to three months, and accordingly, submits that both the Authorities have considered the material on record. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P., it appears that admittedly the offence of 2011 has culminated into conviction and the petitioner was sentenced to 3 35-Cr.WP-873-2025 undergo imprisonment for one year. That crime is of 2011, and therefore, it cannot be considered for passing the externment order. The crimes registered in 2023 are stale offences and have no live link between the date of registration of the offence and the date of order of externment, as the said offence was registered in the year 2023 and the order of externment is passed on 10/09/2025. Another glaring aspect of the matter is that in spite of several orders passed by this Court, still the Authorities are passing the order taking shelter of the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. It is already held by this Court in catena of judgments that the offences which are registered under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act cannot form basis to pass the externment order. Therefore, the externment order cannot sustain on the basis of these crimes. Secondly, most important factor is that in order to satisfy Section 56(1)(b) as the order was passed under the same Section, it is incumbent on the part of the externing Authority to see whether the witnesses are willing to depose against the petitioner or not. In fact, it appears from the record that in-camera statements are not recorded, and therefore, this is the glaring defect in the order of externment. This fact was also ignored by the Appellate Authority, i.e., respondent No.1. 4 35-Cr.WP-873-2025 6. Considering the above, there is merit in the petition, and therefore, it deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:- O R D E R (i) The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed; (ii) The order dated 10/09/2025 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Umred, Nagpur, and the order dated 16/10/2025 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, in Appeal No.118/2025, are hereby quashed and set aside. [ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ] Piyush Mahajan