Person With History Of Several Cases In Which He Was Acquitted Does Not Extend Him Title Of Sainthood Or Glorify His Image In Public: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently opined that a person having been acquitted in many criminal cases does not extend them the title of sainthood or glorify their image in public. On the contrary, it gives them an aura of arrogance and temerity to treat the law with impudence.Dealing with a petition challenging the order of externment passed against the Petitioner, the...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently opined that a person having been acquitted in many criminal cases does not extend them the title of sainthood or glorify their image in public. On the contrary, it gives them an aura of arrogance and temerity to treat the law with impudence.
Dealing with a petition challenging the order of externment passed against the Petitioner, the bench comprising of Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed-
So far as the contention of the petitioner that he has been acquitted in most of the cases is concerned, in the considered opinion of this court, a person having a history of large number of cases (either major or minor) in which he has been acquitted, does not extend him the title of sainthood or glorify his image in public but on the contrary as a human failing, gives him an aura of arrogance and temerity to treat the law with impudence, in such circumstances, merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in most of the cases registered against him, does not entitle him to take advantage of the same in an externment proceedings which is instituted for the 'maintenance of public order and certain other matters connected therewith', as the preamble of Adhiniyam of 1990 suggests.
Facts of the case were that the Petitioner had 12 criminal cases registered against him between the year 2001 to 2020. Corollary to the same, he was served with a notice for his externment for a period of one year from District Ujjain. A reply to the aforesaid notice was filed by him, contending that in most of the cases registered against him, he had already been acquitted and that he had not committed any offence since 26.06.2020. However, his reply did not find favour with the District Magistrate, who passed the order of externment against him. Aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner but the same was dismissed. Challenging his order of externment, he then moved the Court.
The Petitioner submitted before the Court that out of the 12 cases registered against him, he was acquitted in 8 and that he had compromised and paid fine in another two cases. He further submitted that in actuality, only two cases were pending against him. He, thus, asserted that there was no need for the District Magistrate to pass the order of externment against him, especially when no crime was registered against him after the year 2020.
Per contra, the State submitted that though the Petitioner was acquitted in most of the cases registered against him, no benefit could be extended to him as he had already established himself as a hardened criminal of the area. Thus, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.
Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court lamented about the fact that there was a significant delay in serving the notice of externment to the Petitioner. The Court noted that it had repeatedly held that an order of externment be passed immediately after the cause of action arises. However, in the instant case, it was observed that the notice for exterment was prepared after 8 and a half months of the last offence committed by the Petitioner-
Thus, it has taken more than 8 months to the respondents to come to the conclusion, that an order of externment is necessary to curb the criminal activities of the petitioner, whereas the order of externment has been passed on 07.12.2021 i.e. after around 1 1⁄2 (one and half) year from the last offence committed by the petitioner. It is nobody's case that during this period, the petitioner also indulged in criminal activities.
With the aforesaid observations, the Court held that the petition deserved to be allowed only on the ground of lack of proximity between the starting point of the cause of action and the impugned order of externment. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the order of externment against the Petitioner was set aside.
Case Title : Sanjay Maratha v The State of Madhya Pradesh and ors
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 205