CRIMINAL Harshad Rais Ahmed Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Bombay Police Act, 1951 s. 56(1)(a)(b)
Judgment
Rule. The learned A.P.P. service Respondents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taken up for hearing forthwith.
The challenge Petition Article 227 Constitution India
externment passed Respondent No.3 Section 56 (1) (a) (b) Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred Act 1951) and the confirmation thereof by the Respondent No.4 in the statutory Appeal preferred by the Petitioner.
The contention learned Counsel Petitioner notice issued Respondent No.2 15th September 2004 offences described therein in camera statements witnesses. While passing notice, Respondent No.3 placed reliance - 2 - offence registered Mahatma Phule Police Station, Kalyan referred notice. He submitted Applicant opportunity reliance placed Respondent No.3 additional offence concerned. He placed reliance decision Court reported 2002 All M.R. (Cri) No.419 ( Saratullah Mohammed Mukim Khan Vs. Sudesh K. Padvi & others) submitted externment passed on the material extraneous to the show cause notice is liable to be quashed.
The learned A.P.P. pointed fourth offence relied Respondent No.3 registered incident issuance notice 15th September 2004 reason offence referred the show cause notice. He therefore submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned Order.
The object issuing notice opportunity person concerned material proposed relied Authorities passing externment. If externment registration referred offence offence notice, obvious passing externment reliance placed Respondent No.3 on the material which is extraneous to the - 3 - show cause notice.
On this ground alone, the impugned order of externment is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Hence, I pass the following order : i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs. ii) It Authorities to take action against the Petitioner in accordance with law notwithstanding this Order. . Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE - 4 - +
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Bombay Police Act, 1951 — s. 56(1)(a)(b).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 15 Sep 2004. The bench was A S OKA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.