Bhagubhai Dullabhbhai Bhandari: Rameshwar Singh vs District Magistrate, Thana: Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Greater Bombay

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1956 Supreme(SC) 40

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
8th May, 1956
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., JAGANNADHA DAS, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, SINHA, AND IMAM, JJ.
Bhagubhai Dullabhbhai Bhandari, Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate, Thana and others, Respondents.
Petns. Nos. 439 and 440 of 1955.
Rameshwar Singh, Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay and others, Respondents.
Petn. No. 439 of 1955.
Petn. No. 440 of 1955.
Advocates appeared
Mr. H. J. Umrigar and R. A. Govind, Advocates, (in No. 439) and Mr. J. B. Dadachanji, Advocate (amicus curiae), (in No. 440), for Petitioners; Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India. Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with them), for Respondents (in both Petitions).

Advocates:
B.SEN, H.J.Umrigar, J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.SETALVAD, R.A.GOVIND, R.H.Dhebar

Headnote:Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bombay Act XXU:of 1951) section 56-Validity-Meaning and scope of "witness" in the section- Whether not applicable to members of the police force or cnstoms department-Constitutien of India, Art. 19.
       Externment orders were passed against the petitioners under S. 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. In petition under Article 32 of the constitution they contended: (1) The particulars of the evidence against them and of their alleged activities had not been given to them. (2) Unless all the witnesses before the police were unwilling to give evidence in open court the provisions of section 56 could not be taken recourse to. (3) Sectionâ€¢ 56 was invalid as contravening the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution.
       Held: (dismissing the petitions) : (I) The law does not provide that unless each and every witness is unwilling to give evidence in open court, the provisions of section 56 are not available to the police. The words of section 56 do not lend themselves to that e"treme contention. There is no justification for the contention that members of the police force and employees and officers of the Customs Department must always come in the open and give evidence against criminals or potential criminals. If the officer concerned is satisfied that witnesses of whatever description they may be, are not willing to come out in the open, one of the essential conditions of the application of section 56 is fulfilled and it is no more necessary for them to stop to consider as to which class of per~ons those witnesses may come from.
       (2) Section 56 of the Act is not unconstitutional as contravening the provisions of Article 19 of the constitution.
       Per Jagannadhadas J. If the matter were rfS integra I should have felt difficulty in upholding the validity of S. 56(b) of the Act, in so far as it did not demarcate the application thereof to the more serious classes of offences falling within the specified Chapters. I should also ha.ve felt difficulty in holding a provision to be reasonable which clothes the executive officers with an authority to extern a person for so long a period as two years.

Judgement

SINHA, J. : These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenge the constitutionality of some of the provisions of the Bombay Police Act. 22 of 1951 (which hereinafter will be referred to as "The Act"), with special reference to S. 56, as also of the orders passed against them externing them under that section of the Act.

2. In Petition No. 439 of 1955 Babubhai Dullabhbhai Bhandari is the petitioner and the District Magistrate of Thana, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bhivandi Division, Bhiwandi, District Thana, and the State of Bombay are respondents 1, 2 and 3. The petitioner is a citizen of India and carries on trade in grass in Bhilad, a railway station on the Western Railway. On 21st January 1955 the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bhiwandi Division, served a notice under S. 56 of the Act in the following terms :-

No. Ext. 3/1 of 1955

Office of the S.D.P.O. Bhiwandi,

Bhiwandi, dated 21-1-1955.

(I) I, Shri C. V. Bapat, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sub-Divisional Office, Bhiwandi Division, District Thana, do hereby issue a notice to you, Shri Bhagu Dubal Bhandari alias Bhagwanbhai Dulla Bhai Jadhav of Bhilad District Thana, that it is proposed that you should be removed outside the District of Thana and you should not enter or return to the said district for a period of two years from the date of the order to be made under S. 56, Bombay Police Act, 1951, for the following reasons :-

(II) Evidence is forthcoming that your following activities have caused and are calculated to cause alarm, danger and harm to person and property in Bhilad and the surrounding areas :-

(1) You have been dealing in smuggled foreign liquor and maintained a veil of secrecy by criminal intimidation and physical violence to the villagers and other right thinking persons.

2. Your activities have been in continuation of your similar activities for the last five years, given as under:-

(a) You criminally assaulted persons with the help of your associates and did violent acts in order to strike terror into the hearts of the villagers, so that they should not challenge you or your men.

(b) You have been criminally assaulting and intimidating Central Excise and Custom officials with the help of your gang, so as to stop them from looking into your anti-national, anti-social and illegal activities. As a result of your unlawful and dangerous activities you are held in terrific awe by the Central Excise and Custom Officers and men and villagers in Bhilad area who are continuously labouring under grave apprehension of danger to their person and property.

(c) You and your associates were and are making use of criminal intimidation against the villagers in order to prevent them for having recourse to legal means.

(III) That you and your associates are also understood to be in possession of unlicensed firearms which has been causing considerable alarm and spreading a feeling of insecurity of life and property in the mind of villagers from Bhilad and neighboring villages and Central Excise and Customs employees.

(IV) the witnesses are not willing to come forward and to give evidence against you be reason of apprehension of danger and harm to their person and property.

(V) Now, I Shri C. V. Bapat, Deputy Superintendent of Police & Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bhiwandi Division, District Thane in exercise of the authority conferred upon me under S. 59, Bombay Police Act, 1951 by the District Magistrate, Thana under his number MAG 2/EX dated 17.1.1955 do hereby direct you to appear before me at 11 a.m. on 27-1-1955 at Dahanu in the office of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dahanu for tendering your explanation regarding the said allegation. You are also entitled to appear before me by advocate for the purpose of tendering your explanation and examining witnesses produced by you. Signed and sealed this day of 21st Jan. 1955.

Sd. ..............

Deputy Superintendent of Police and S