1 cr-wp-1709-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P. NO. 1709 OF 2010 Avinash Eknath Bhoir ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Mah. and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. Pritam Girad Adv. for Mr. Hiten S.Venegavkar Adv. for petitioner Mr. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 19, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (externee) and the learned APP for the State. 2 The order of externment dated 8.3.2010 passed by the Respondent no.2 and confirmed by order dated 6.5.2010 by the Government of Maharashtra in an appeal preferred by the externee, is challenged in this petition. It is under Sections 56(1) (a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act. The petitioner is the externee. 2 cr-wp-1709-10 3 The externment order is based on two C.Rs. of Narpoli Police Station and two incamera statements. On perusal of the show cause notice, it is seen that the movements or acts of the petitioner were causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. Thus there was sufficient material before the externing authority to pass an order under Section 56(a) of the Act. Moreover, the requirement of Section 56(b) of the Act were also complied with as the show cause notice shows that the petitioner was engaged in commission of offence involving various acts punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of IPC and on account of fear, witnesses were not willing to come forward openly to give evidence against him. Thus, there was sufficient material before the externing authority to pass an order under Sections 56(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the order of externment, the petitioner had been externed out of Thane, Mumbai, Mumbai Sub-urban, Navi-Mumbai and Nasik districts. However, the appellate authority had restricted order of externment to Thane, Mumbai Suburban and Navi-Mumbai districts. He further submitted that when the appellate authority interfered with the order of externment, it should not have restricted the areas from which the petitioner was exempted but on the ground that externment order being 3 cr-wp-1709-10 excessive, the entire externment order ought to have been set aside by the appellate authority. 5 The appellate authority can always partly allow an appeal or modify the impugned order. The appellate authority in the present case has found the order of externment excessive and hence, the order of externment was restricted to Thane, Navi-Mumbai and Mumbai Sub- urban districts. As these are contiguous three districts given the latest modes of communication and transportation a person can travel from one district to another within half an hour, hence, externment from these three districts cannot be said to be excessive. 6 In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Hence, petition is dismissed. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]