1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.267 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1205 OF 2006 Nitin Kamlakar Chakranarayan, .. Petitioner. Vs 1. The Asst.Commissioner of Police and ors. .. Respondents. Mr V.V.Purwant, for the petitioner. Mrs M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 10th August, 2006 DATED : 10th August, 2006 DATED : 10th August, 2006 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr Purwant, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that when the criminal writ petition was argued for admission, through inadvertence, it was mentioned that the petitioner was externed for a period of two years commencing from 8/12/2005 and in view thereof after issuing rule on the petition, liberty was granted to the petitioner to apply for a fixed date of hearing after two months and if the petition was not heard within six months therefrom, the petitioner was granted further liberty to apply for interim relief afresh. He further submits that in fact the order of externment is only for one year and the petitioner has already suffered it for eight months. It is true that the following 2 2 2 order and in particular paragraph 2 thereof was passed under the impression that the petitioner has been externed for a period of two years. The order dated 28.6.2006 reads thus: "1. Rule. 2. Liberty to the petitioner to apply for fixed date of hearing after two months and if the petition is not heard for final disposal within six months therefrom, it is open for the petitioner to apply for interim relief afresh. Interim relief at this stage is rejected." From perusal of the order of externment it is clear that the petitioner has been externed for a period of one year commencing from 8.12.2005. Considering the period of externment and that the petitioner has already suffered the order for eight months, paragraph 2 of the order dated 28.6.2006 is recalled. Liberty to the petitioner to apply for interim order afresh by separate application is granted. The criminal application is disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)