SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(SC) 111

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. VAIDIALINGAM AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
1. The State of Gujarat and another (In Cr. A. No. 167 of 1965), 2. B. S. Nirula (In Cr. A. No. 168 of 1965), Appellants
Versus
1. Mehbubkhan Usrnankhan in Cr. A. No 167 of 1965); 2. Ahmed Noormohamad (In Cr. A. No 168 of 1965), Respondents.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 167 and 168 of 1965,
D/- 11-4-l968.
Advocates appeared
M/s. G. L. Sanghi and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, for Appellants (In both the Appeals); M/s. O. P Malhotra and P. C. Bhartari Advocates and M/s. T. B. Dadachanji and Co; Advocates, for Respondents (In Cr. A. No. 167 of 1965); M/s. Arun H. Mehta and I. N. Shroff, Advocates, for Respondent (In Cr. A. No. 168 of 1965).

Advocates:
Anu Mehta, G.L.SANGHI, I.M.SHROFF, J.B.DADACHAN, O.P.MALHOTRA, P.C.BHARTARI, R.H.Dhebar

Headnote:

Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bom. Act XXII of 1951) - Sections 59 r/w56 - Maintenance of Public Order and Safety of the State - Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic Branch served a notice, on respondent in Criminal Appeal, under S. 59 read with S. 56 of Act - Allegations are made against you in a proceeding under Section 56 of said Act, and it is proposed that you should be removed outside District of Ahmedabad City and contiguous Districts of Ahmedabad Rural, Kaira and Mehsana and you should not enter or return to said Districts for a period of two years from date of order proposed to be passed against you under Section 56 of Act, 1951 - Whether a proper interpretation has been placed, under Section 59 of Act, by High Court - Whether notices, issued in present cases, under Section 59, suffer from any infirmity - Held, Court are not adverting to those decisions, in view of decision of this Court, referred to above - No doubt, expression place of public entertainment, is defined in Section 2 (10) of Act; but mere fact that said definition takes in various types of places, does not militate against allegation No. 1 in Special Criminal Application, or allegation No. 3, in connected application, being of a general nature of material allegations as contemplated under Section 50 - Orders of Gujarat High Court are, accordingly, set aside, and these criminal appeals, allowed But, we may make it again clear, that in spite of our decision, in favour of appellants, no action can be taken against respondents, in these appeals on basis of orders, which are now held to be valid - Appeal allowed.

Judgement

VAIDIALINGAM, J. : In these criminal appeals, by special leave, the State of Gujarat and its officer, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic Branch Ahmedabad City, challenge the orders dated April, 8. 1965, passed by the Gujarat High Court, in Special Criminal Applications Nos. 3 and 8 of 1965 quashing the orders of externment passed against the respective respondents under S. 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bom. Act XXII of 1951), (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1965 is directed against the order in Special Criminal Application No 3 of 1965, and Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 1965, is directed against the order in Special Criminal Application No. 8 of 1965.

2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic Branch, Ahmedabad City, served a notice, dated August 13, 1964, on the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1985, under S. 59 read with S. 56 of the Act, in the following terms :

"Under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act (Bom. Act XXII of 1951) you are hereby informed that the following allegations are made against you in a proceeding under Section 56 of the said Act, and it is proposed that you should be removed outside the District of Ahmedabad City and the contiguous Districts of Ahmedabad Rural, Kaira and Mehsana and you should not enter or return to the said Districts for a period of two years from the date of order proposed to be passed against you under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. You are also informed that I have been empowered by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Ahmedabad City under his No. P. C. B. dated 12th August 1964 to proceed according to Section 59 (1) of the said Act.

In order to give you an opportunity of tendering your explanation regarding the said allegations, I have appointed 11.00 hours on 21st August 1964 to receive your explanation and to hear you and your witnesses, if any, in regard to the said allegations and hence require you to appear before me at my office situated in old Nurses Hostel, Patharkuva, Relief Road, Ahmedabad City on the said date and time for the said purpose and to pass a bond in the sum of Rs. 500/- with one surety in like amount for your attendance during the enquiry of the said proceedings. In case you fail to appear on the due date an ex parte hearing and decision wild be taken, that is, the inquiry will proceed against you in normal manner and decision will be taken in your absence.

TAKE NOTE :-

ALLEGATIONS :-

It is alleged against you that you are a dangerous and desperate person and indulge in acts involving force and violence. You terrorise the residents, of the localities known as Rentiawadi Halinkhadki and round about areas under Karanj and Madhavpura Police Stations. Since the month of November 1963 till today you are engaged in the commission of the following offence in the above localities:-

1. You way-lay, rob and extort money from the persons at the point of knife and under threats of violence;

2. You demand money from the persons and on their refusal to pay you beat them ;-

3. You consume eatables from the place of public entertainment without payment and when legal dues are demanded you beat the person;

You are engaged in several acts as mentioned in paras (1), (2) and (3) above and that the witnesses to the above incidents are not willing to come forward to depose against you in public by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person and property.

It is proposed to extern you for a period of two years. It is also proposed to extern you out of the contiguous Districts of Ahmedabad Rural, Kaira and Mehsana as you are likely to operate and indulge in your violent, activities from the contiguous Districts also through your associates and agents if not so externed."

The said notice was served on the party on August 20, 1964. On the date, fixed for hearing i. e., August 21, 1964, the respondent Mehboob Khan appeared before the officer, and after making a preliminary statement





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top