Sanjay @ Sanju Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Sl. No.,Crime No.,Sections

1,142/06,"294, 323, 506, 34, 325, 326 IPC

2,622/06,"147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324, IPC

3,74/09,"294, 323, 506, 34 IPC

4,289/10,"341, 294, 323, 506, 34 IPC

5,274/16,"294, 323, 506, 34 IPC

6,Istgasa No.06/17,110 Cr.P.C.

“8. The expression is engaged or is about to be engaged"" in the commission of offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under",,

Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under Section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or in the abetment of any such offence, shows that the",,

commission of the offence or the abetment of such offence by the person must have a very close proximity to the date on which the order is proposed,,

to be passed under Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990. Hence, if a person was engaged in the commission of offence or in abetment of an offence of the",,

type mentioned in section 5 (b), several years or several months back, thee cannot be any reasonable ground for believing that the person is engaged",,

or is about to be engaged in the commission of such offence.â€​,,

In the case of Ramgopal Ragjhuvanshi vs. State of M.P. and others, 2014(4) MPLJ 654 this Court after considering the earlier judgments in respect",,

of Section 5 of the Act held that the order of externment cannot be passed on the basis of old and stale cases. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court at,,

Indore in the case of Bhim @ Vipul vs. Home Department, (W.P. No.4329/2015, decided on 14-09-2015) has also considered the judgments rendered",,

in the cases of Ashok Kumar (supra) and Ramgopal Ragjhuvanshi (supra) and held that the expression “engaged or is to be engaged†used in,,

Section 5(b)(i) shows that commission of offence or the abetment of such offence by the person must have close proximity to the date on which the,,

order is proposed to be passed under Section 5(b) of the Act.,,

In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Ben Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2005 (4) MPHT 102 while considering the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1990,",,

the court held that the provision is not punitive in its nature and a person cannot be externed for his past acts. Although past activities of a person may,,

afford a guide as to his behaviour in future, they must be reviewed in the context of the time when the order is proposed to be made. The past",,

activities must be related to the situation existing at the moment when the order is to be passed.,,

In the instant case, upon perusal of the impugned orders, it is also found that the District Magistrate did not record any opinion on the basis of the",,

materials that in his opinion witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner by reason of apprehension as,,

regards to their safety. Hence, in absence of any existence of material to show that witnesses are not coming forward by reason of apprehension to",,

give evidence against the petitioner in respect of the alleged offences, an order u/s 5 (b) of Adhiniyam, 1990 cannot be passed by the District",,

Magistrate as held in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel Vs. State of M.P. (Supra) by the Division Bench that for a passing an order of externment,,

against the person both the conditions mentioned under section 5 (b) (i) and (ii) have to be satisfied.,,

In the light of the aforesaid preceding analysis, we are of the considered view that the impugned order of externment and affirmation thereof in the",,

appeal are unsustainable having been found in violation of the ingredients of Section 5 of the Adhiniaym and the judgments passed by this Court which,,

have been noted hereinbefore.,,

Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25-02-2019 as well as the impugned order of",,

externment dated 12-10-2018 passed by the respondent no.3 and the order dated 17-12-2018, passed by the appellate authority, the respondent no.2",,

are hereby quashed .,,