1 CRI.REVISION APPLN.NO.265/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.265/2010. Diwakar s/o Keshav Palkar Age: 47 Yrs., occu. Labour, R/o House No.E-40/12, Gulmohar Colony, N-5 CIDCO, Aurangabad. - PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through : Police Station Officer, CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad. - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.MK Deshpande, Adv. for Revision Petitioner; Mr.NB Patil, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 27th January, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard Mr.Deshpande, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused. 2) The petitioner/accused was externed from Aurangabad and Jalna districts for a period of two years by order dated 3rd August, 2007. It was expected that the accused would not visit the territory of Aurangabad City or Aurangabad 2 CRI.REVISION APPLN.NO.265/2010 district and area of Jalna district. 3) The accused/petitioner was served with an externment order. In spite of communication of the said order, the petitioner/accused was found in the night intervening 17th July, 2008, 18th July, 2008 in the area of Bajrang Chowk, CIDCO, Aurangabad. The police party, having received such communication, nabbed him. Enquiries were made with him, there was no challenge to the identity of the accused/petitioner to be the same externee. The petitioner/accused, having committed the breach of the terms of the externment order, was prosecuted for an offence under Section 142 of the Bombay Police Act. 4) The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, sentenced accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Challenge to the same in Criminal Appeal No.77/2010 did not yield any result. 5) On analysis of the evidence adduced against the petitioner/accused and the findings recorded by both the courts, I find, there is no apparent error in appreciation; no perversity can be branded to the orders under challenge. The learned Counsel though tried to harp on the 3 CRI.REVISION APPLN.NO.265/2010 panchanama of arrest, however, it is a figment, not to be acted upon as requisitions for due diligence is surfacing in the panchanama including names of the witnesses, communication to the relatives of the accused/petitioner, no flaw on this point can further be accelerated. 6) Section 142(a) of the Bombay Police Act ordains, - “142(a)In contravention of a direction issued to any person under Sections 55, 56, 57, 57-A or 63-AA, enters or returns without permission to the area shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, but shall not, except for reasons to be recorded in writing, be less than six months and shall also be liable to fine.” 7) Though the petitioner/accused was specifically indicated to remain outside the jurisdiction, he has entered the area of the districts without permission of the authorities. It being his first mistake and no overt act was committed by the accused, barring his discreet information to the police, nothing prejudicial to the public at large or to any authority was surfacing. The conviction recorded against the petitioner/accused, as stated above, cannot be faulted. However, considering the age and mistake, being first time, the sentence imposed 4 CRI.REVISION APPLN.NO.265/2010 upon the petitioner/accused is reduced from the period of one year to six months with the same fine. 8) Criminal Revision allowed partly in the aforesaid terms. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/