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
6 paragraphs · 218 wordsA.Muhamed Mustaque , J
Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P3 order by which he has been directed not to enter the the Kannur Revenue District for a period of one year. Advisory Board modified the said order restricting the the operation of externment order fo a period of nine months and further to appear before the SHO, Kannavam Police Station for a period of three months. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the externment order is illegal and last offence referred in the externment order cannot be reckoned for the purpose of passing detention order.
We have perused the externment order. We do not find any reason to interfere with the grounds on which externment order has been passed.
However, taking note of his age, ie. 28 years, we are of the view that the impugned order can be confined for a period of four months from the date of impugned order. Thereafter, petitioner shall report before the Station House Officer, Kannavam Police Station on every Sundays at 11 am for a further period of two months.
This W.P.(Crl.) is disposed of as above. It will be open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, in case of non-compliance.
The W.P.(Crl.) is disposed of as above.