* 1 * WP. 1926.2011 26.9.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1926 OF 2011 Digamber Tukaram Mogre ..... Petitioner V/S. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr. Sachin Pande with Mr. Prashant Gavai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.V. Newton, APP for the State-respondent. CORAM :- K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. 26 September, 2011. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The order of externment dated 1st January, 2011 by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nasik externing the petitioner from the limits of Nashik Commissionerate and Nashik Rural for a period of 2 years, is questioned. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, based on two cases, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner from which in one of the case, the petitioner has been acquitted. There are no criminal antecedents against him. He is engaged in flower vending * 2 * WP. 1926.2011 26.9.2011 business. Six months have elapsed, he is residing out of Nashik at a relation's house in Pune. The learned APP, submits that, after the externment order, one more crime on 2nd January, 2011 vide C.R. No. 1 of 2011 was registered at Gangapur Police Station against him. Two witness in in-camera statements implicate the petitioner by pointing that for the occasion of Ganpati festival he demanded donations. Refusal, a situation of arson of damaging the property, has arisen. 4. Apparently, the petitioner has been acquitted from one of the two crimes registered against him. The persons who gave their in-camera statements, referred to events of Ganpati Festival. However, for that there was no support of any criminal action of extortion. The subsequent C.R. No. 319 of 2010 is in relation to causing an accident and damage. 5. The order of externment, based on two cases out of which from one the petitioner is acquitted, is certainly excessive as it is curtailing every movement of the petitioner from Nashik Commissionerate or Nashik Rural. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Balu Shivling Dombe V/s. The Divisional Magistrate Pandharpur and Another (AIR 1969 Bombay 351). The Division Bench refers to the situation in paragraph-6 which reads as under : * 3 * WP. 1926.2011 26.9.2011 "6. We are of the view that the impugned order of externment is illegal and must be set aside. In the first place, the impugned order is not covered by Cl.(a) of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, under which it was passed. The relevant requirement of Cl. (a) of Section 56 is "that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property." In our view, the reference in Cl. (a) to "alarm, danger or harm," is a reference to the alarm, danger or ham to the public generally and not to one or two individuals in the public. An order of externment cannot be passed under Cl.(a) merely on a finding that the movements or acts of a person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to one or two individuals in a locality. It is possible in certain cases that if a person causes or threatens to cause harm to a few individuals, his movements or acts may cause or be calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to a considerable section of the public. There is, however, no finding by the Divisional Magistrate in the present case that the harm caused by the petitioner to Thite and Utpat had spread or was calculated to spread alarm, danger or harm to the general public or a considerable section of the general public. In fact, no such finding could possibly have been given by the Divisional Magistrate on the basis of the two minor incidents specified in Cls. 2(h) and 2(i) of the notice." 7. Considering these aspects of the matter, I find the externment order calls for interference. The Appellate Authority also did not venture that out of the two cases, one has turned into acquittal and one is simply pending and does not involve grave threat to the Society as a whole by the conduct of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The externment order is quashed and set aside. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J]