8.wp859.2025jud.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 859 OF 2025 Ramesh S/o Madhav Bawane Aged about 46 years, Occupation : Agricultural Labour, R/o. Hudi (Bk.), Taluka Pusad, District – Yavatmal. ... Petitioner Versus 1 The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati 2 The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pusad, Tah. Pusad, District – Yavatmal 3 The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Pusad, Tah. Pusad, District – Yavatmal ... Respondents 4 The District Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal, District – Yavatmal 5 Police Station Officer, Police Station Pusad (Rural), District – Yavatmal Mr. S.S. Nemade, Advocate a/w Mr. A.S. Nemade, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Bhagwan N. Lonare, APP for respondent Nos.1 to 5/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 13.11.2025 JUDGMENT: Heard finally by consent of both the learned counsel for the parties. PAGE 1 OF 7 2025:BHC-NAG:12072 8.wp859.2025jud.odt (2) Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. B.N. Lonare, learned A.P.P. waives service for respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. (3) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the confirmation order dated 14.08.2025 passed by respondent No.1 – Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and order dated 22/08/2024 passed by respondent No.2 – Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pusad, Yavatmal, whereby respondent No.2 has externed the petitioner under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (“the Act of 1951”). The learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is externed only on basis of offences committed by him under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. He further submits that as per the settled position of law, the offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act cannot form the 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) Sagarsingh Kesharsingh Bawari Vs. Ministry of Home PAGE 2 OF 7 8.wp859.2025jud.odt Department and others, 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 4407, (ii) Paramjitsingh @ Jentil Sardar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 ALL MR (Cri) 1284, (iii) Vijay @ Tyson s/o. Namdeorao Dongre Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 5254, (iv) Hitesh Santosh Shinde and others Vs. The Divisional Commissioner and others, 2024 ALL MR (Cri) 4174, (v) Sagar Vinod Katole and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (Criminal Writ Petition No.320/2025, decided on 01.07.2025), (vi) Shivraj s/o Bhagwan Patil Vs. The Divisional Commissioner and others (Criminal Writ Petition No.619/2018 with another matter, decided on 10.07.2018). (4) Per contra, learned APP vehemently submits that the activities of the petitioner is squarely covered under the provisions of Section 56 of the Act of 1951 and thereby, he supported the order of externment and the confirmation order passed by respondent No.1. (5) I have heard both the sides at length and also gone through the case laws which are cited by the learned counsel for petitioner. Upon perusal of the impugned order and the case laws, it can be gathered that the petitioner is facing criminal trial for the offences registered under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. It seems PAGE 3 OF 7 8.wp859.2025jud.odt from the record that, there are as many as 4 cases registered against the petitioner under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The judgments of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner, unequivocally clarifies the position so far as externment under Section 56 of the Act of 1951 is concerned, that the offences under provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act cannot form the basis to invoke the provisions of Section 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 (supra), 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 (supra) wherein this Court in paragraph 13 has observed as under:- “13. It would be necessary to go through the relevant record PAGE 4 OF 7 8.wp859.2025jud.odt to examine the correctness of the orders impugned 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 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 PAGE 5 OF 7 8.wp859.2025jud.odt 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 the petitioner, and this settled position of law was conveniently ignored by both the authorities i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2. (6) Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that both the authorities i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2 have miserably failed to take into consideration the above aspect of the matter and therefore, committed gross error by externing the petitioner from Yavatmal, Hingoli and Washim District for one year. In this view of the matter, following order is passed:- (I) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. (II) The Impugned order dated 22.08.2024 passed by respondent PAGE 6 OF 7 8.wp859.2025jud.odt No.2 – Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pusad in Criminal Case No.56(b)/02/2024 and order dated 14.08.2025 passed by respondent No.1 – Divisional Commissioner, Amravati in Appeal No. 56/2024 are hereby quashed and set aside. (7) Rule is made absolute in above terms. [M.M. NERLIKAR, J.] Prity PAGE 7 OF 7