..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2035 OF 2006 Shri Anil Deepchand Rajpal ...Petitioner. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents. .... Mrs.S.A.Mudbidri, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 6th March, 2007. DATED : 6th March, 2007. DATED : 6th March, 2007. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. By order dated 19th April, 2006 the petitioner came to be externed by respondent No.2. By the said order the petitioner came to be externed for a period of two years. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that she does not wish to make any submission on merits, if the order of externment ..(2).. is restricted to the period of one year. The learned APP has pointed out that the period of externment is two years and the Appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 4. The learned APP for the State has stated that the petitioner has already been externed for almost 11 months and there are no adverse reports during that period, hence he does not seriously object to the period of externment being restricted to one year. 5. In this view of the matter, looking to the fact that the petitioner has already been externed for a period of almost 11 months and also looking to the fact that there are no adverse reports in respect of the petitioner in the said period, without going into the merits of the case the order of externment is confirmed. However, the period of externment is restricted to one year. 6. Rule is partly made absolute. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)