AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 216 wordsA. Muhamed Mustaque, J
The petitioner, who is a daily wage worker, challenges the externment order. He is involved in four offences and was restrained from entering into Malappuram revenue district for a period of six months. The Advisory Board reduced the period to four months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Out of four offences, two offences are under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”). One is for a small quantity and the other is for an intermediate quantity. We perused the nature of allegations attributed against the petitioner. The petitioner's wife, in fact, had filed a writ petition against police harassment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the last prejudicial activity on 09.07.2023 was a fabricated case against him.
Having adverted to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the operation of the externment order can be confined to 07.02.2024. That means, he would complete two months on 07.02.2024. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the effect that the petitioner shall report before the Station House Officer, Thirurangadi Police Station on every Sunday at 10 am for a period of another two months.
The W.P. Crl. is disposed of with the above modifications.