If the argument of the learned companynsel were to be accepted, though the externment order held the field and had number been quashed at the material time, numberoffence would be companymitted in view of the subsequent quashing of the order.
The learned Judge rejected this effect of the writ issued under Art.
His reasoning, invigorated by surgical imagery, flowed thus Now the companytravention took place on September 17, 1967 whereas the externment order in question has been quashed about one year thereafter on July 16, 1968.
From the judgment and order dated March 5, 1970 of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.
83 of 1970.
In other words, though the order had number been declared invalid at the material time a companytravention thereof would number companystitute an offence.
The State appealed with success, for the High Court held that the accused had re entered the forbidden area during the currency of the order.
What is crucial for this case is whether the externment order having been quashed by the High Court under Art.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
673 of 1968.
226 of the Constitution on July 16, 1968 during the pendency of the criminal trial it had become void ab initio and there being thus numberquit order in law there was numberoffence.
The question, therefore, is can a person against whom an order of externment under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act has been issued disobey the said order and companytravene the d irections companytained therein with impunity if subsequently the order is quashed ?
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. The appeal before us raises a thorny issue of some importance which may be epigramatically expressed as when has the citizen the discretion to disobey an order ?
On companytravention of that order he was prosecuted under Sec.
A. Shah and M. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
226 and companyvicted the accused.
K. Dholakia, for the appellant.
the trial Court.
142 of the Act but was acquitted by.
