A statute that is designed to protect the public from the activities of undesirable persons who have been convicted of certain offences is not retrospective, even if it is expressed in language that could be interpreted retrospectively.

Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : This is an appeal by the State of Bombay, with the special leave of this Court, against the order of acquittal by the High Court of Bombay of the respondent, Vishnu Ramchandra, who was prosecuted under S. 142 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment by the Presidency Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazagaon, Bombay.

2. On November 16, 1949, Vishnu Ramchandra was convicted under Ss. 380 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to one month s rigorous imprisonment. On October 15, 1957, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bombay, acting under S. 57(a) of the Bombay Police Act (22 of 1951), passed an order against Vishnu Ramchandra which was to operate for one year, externing him from the limits of Greater Bombay. At that time, a prosecution under S. 411 of the Indian Penal Code was pending against Vishnu Ramchandra, and he was not immediately externed, to enable him to attend the case. This prosecution came to an end on July 10, 1958, and resulted in his acquittal. Immediately afterwards, a constable took him outside the limits of Greater Bombay, and left him there. The prosecution case was that he returned to Greater Bombay, and was arrested at Pydhonie on August 24, 1958. He was prosecuted under S. 142 of the Bombay Police Act. His plea that he was forcibly brought back to Pydhonie and arrested was not accepted by the Presidency Magistrate, and he was convicted.

3. He filed a revision application, which was heard by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Bombay. Three contentions were raised before the High Court. The first was that the Deputy Commissioner of Police had not applied his mind to the facts of the case before making the order of externment. The second was that S. 57 of the Bombay Police Act was prospective, and could not be made applicable, unless the conviction on which the action of externment was based, took place after the coming into force of that Act. The third was that the belief entertained by the Deputy Commissioner that Vinhnu Ramchandra was likely to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to that for which he was prosecuted was based on the prosecution which was then pending, and that that ground disappeared after his acquittal. The High Court did not consider the first and the third grounds, because it held that the second ground was good.

4. Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act reads as follows :

"Removal of persons convicted of certain offences. -

If a person has been convicted -

(a) of an offence under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860), or

(b) twice of an offence under S. 9 or 23 of the Bombay Beggars Act, 1945 (Bom XXIII of 1945), or under the Bombay Prevention of Prostitution Act, 1923 (Bom XI of 1923), or

(c) thrice of an offence within a period of three years under S. 4 or 12A of the Bombay Prevention of Gamling Act, 1887 (Bom. IV of 1887), or under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (Bom XXV of 1949) the Commissioner, the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, if he has reason to believe that such person is likely again to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to that for which he was convicted, may direct such person to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction, by such route and within such time as the said officer may prescribe and not to enter or return to the area from which he was directed to remove himself.

5. In reaching conclusion the learned single Judge observed that the legislature had used the present participle "has been" and not the past participle in the opening portion of the section, and the this indicated that the section was intended to be used only where a person was convicted subsequent to the coming into force of the Act. He further observed that being a penal section, it had to be interpreted prospectively. He repelled an argument of the Assistant Gover