Suhas Bhupal Latore v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 144, 144(1)
- Bombay Police Act, 1951 s. 56
- Bombay Police Act
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. In our considered opinion such an action could not have been taken by the Executive Magistrate under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. Hence, the order dated 18th September, 2009 is 4 hereby quashed…
Judgment
Mr.Rahul Walvekar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, A.P.P for the State CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. Dated : 1ST OCTOBER, 2009 P.C. :
Heard Mr. Walvekar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Mrs. Bhosale, learned A.P.P appears for the Respondents.
Rule.
Mrs. Bhosale waives service for the Respondents.
The Petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith by consent of the parties. 2
In this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 the Petitioner impugns the order dated 18th September, 2009 purportedly passed by the Executive Magistrate, Taluka: Karveer, District: Kolhapur under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and by the said order the Petitioner has been externed from the limits of Kolhapur City as well as Karveer Taluka.
The Petitioner claims to be the resident of 56/3, Shahu Park, Kolhapur and he is a sitting Corporator. As per the instructions received by Mrs. Bhosale from the Nayab Tahasildar of Karveer Taluka the Petitioner is an Ex-Corporator to Kolhapur Municipal Corporation.
Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate to order to abstain from a certain act any person, if there is sufficient ground made out in case, limited preventive or speedy remedy as deserved or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such 3 direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, or an affray.
Section 144(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate to pass the prohibitory order or abstain from certain act against any person. By the impugned order the Petitioner has been prohibited from entering into the city limits of Kolhapur as well as the limits of Karveer Taluka. The plain reading of the impugned order indicates that it is an order of externment, which could be passed only under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. As noted earlier the Petitioner is a resident of Kolhapur City and the impugned order is for a short period from 26th September, 2009 to 16th October, 2009.
In our considered opinion such an action could not have been taken by the Executive Magistrate under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. Hence, the order dated 18th September, 2009 is 4 hereby quashed and set aside and we make it clear that Executive Magistrate is not estopped from taking any steps against the Petitioner under the Bombay Police Act, if so advised.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 144, 144(1); Bombay Police Act, 1951 — s. 56; Bombay Police Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 01 Oct 2009. The bench was ROSHAN DALVI.
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.