1 WP 2276 OF 2010 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2276 OF 2010 Prakash Laxman Komkar .. Petitioner -versus The Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Pune City. .. Respondents. Mr. Prakash Naik, for the petitioner. Mrs. P. P. Bhosale, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 20th January, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally. 2. The petition is directed against the order passed by the Principal Secretary, Home Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, dated 6th July, 2010, confirming the externment order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pune 7.5.2010 under Section 56(1) (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 3. When this petition came up for hearing first on 9th August, 2010, this Court had already indicated that prima facie it is difficult to sustain the impugned order passed by the Externing Authority. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP. It has to be observed that prior to passing order dated 7th May, 2010, the concerned Authority had passed 2 WP 2276 OF 2010 externment order against which appeal was carried to the Principal Secretary. However, externment order was set aside by the Principal Secretary. According to respondent, after that the petitioner had indulged in two more criminal activities which resulted in registration of crime No.6005 of 2008 for offences under section 65(D), 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act registered at Samarth Police station, Pune and another CR No. 183 of 2008 for the offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code registered in the same police station, and therefore, respondents seek to justify the externment order. 5. As far as crime No.6005 of 2008, is concerned, it is under section 65(D) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act and therefore it is not covered by the offences which are enumerated in clause (b) of sub section 1 of section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, and this aspect has already been considered by this Court in case of Ashok Kashinath Kale - vs- Ravindra Jadhav and anr 1983 (2) Bom. C.R. 763. 6. As far as crime No.183 of 2008 is concerned, the learned APP concedes that in the said case the petitioner has been acquitted. In view of this the impugned order is thoroughly unjustified and therefore quashed and set aside. 7. In view of this, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)