Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Chagla, C.J. and Shah, J.
Appellants:: Govind Pandurang Phalke
Vs.
Respondent: .
Criminal Appln. No. 1060 of 1953
Decided On: 23.11.1953
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Rajani Patel and Vithalbhai B. Patel, Advs.
For State: H.M. Choksi, Govt. Pleader
POLICE ACT - SECTION 56, 59 - [SUMMARY] The court interpreted the provisions of Sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, in the context of an externment order issued against the petitioner. The court held that the externing authority could consider activities of the petitioner that occurred in the past, even if they were not in the immediate or approximate past, as long as those activities caused or were calculated to cause alarm, danger, or harm to person or property. The court also held that the notice served on the petitioner under Section 59 provided sufficient particulars of the material allegations against him, enabling him to tender an explanation, even though specific dates and times were not mentioned for certain activities.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the President of a labour union, was served with a notice under Section 59 of the Police Act, alleging various activities that caused or were calculated to cause alarm, danger, or harm to person or property. The petitioner was given an opportunity to explain, but the externing authority concluded that a case had been made out under Section 56 and ordered the petitioner to leave the area for one year.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the externing authority had not taken into consideration any activity that was foreign to the Act or outside its ambit and scope. The court also found that the notice served on the petitioner provided sufficient particulars of the material allegations against him, enabling him to tender an explanation.
Issues: 1. Whether the externing authority could consider activities of the petitioner that occurred in the past, even if they were not in the immediate or approximate past, as long as those activities caused or were calculated to cause alarm, danger, or harm to person or property. 2. Whether the notice served on the petitioner under Section 59 provided sufficient particulars of the material allegations against him, enabling him to tender an explanation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 56 of the Police Act to mean that the movements or acts of a person that cause or are calculated to cause alarm, danger, or harm to person or property are not limited to those that occur in the immediate or approximate past. The court held that the externing authority could consider activities of the petitioner that occurred in the past, even if they were not in the immediate or approximate past, as long as those activities caused or were calculated to cause alarm, danger, or harm to person or property. 2. The court interpreted Section 59 of the Police Act to mean that the notice served on the petitioner provided sufficient particulars of the material allegations against him, enabling him to tender an explanation. The court held that the notice did not need to provide specific dates and times for certain activities, as long as the material allegations were set out with sufficient clarity and precision to enable the petitioner to understand the nature of the allegations and to respond to them.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition challenging the externment order.
1. This is a petition challenging an order made by the Additional District Magistrate, North Satara, on 24-7-1953, by which the District Magistrate ordered the petitioner to remove himself outside the area of North Satara district for a period of one year and not to return to the said area during that period. The petitioner is the President of a labour union consisting of workers working in Cooper Engineering Works in Satara, and on 2-5-1953, he was served with a notice under Section 59, Police Act and that notice set out the various grounds on which the externing authorities proposed to take action. The petitioner was heard, he offered an explanation, called witnesses, and the externing authority was satisfied that a case had been made out under Section 56, Police Act and passed the order as already stated on 24-7-1953.
2. Mr. Patel who appears for the petitioner has challenged this order on two grounds. The first ground is that the externing authority has taken into consideration a ground which is foreign to the Act and outside its ambit and scope. The activities of the petitioner which were referred to in the notice were: (1) That he had instigated the workers in the Cooper Engineering Works between December 1952 and March 1, 1953, forcibly to take possession of the factory and to offer resistance to the police and the companys men and as a result of that instigation the workers actually took forcible possession of the factory on 2-3-1953, and on 3-3-1953, indulged in various criminal acts.
The notice goes on to say that the petitioners objectionable activities had been in continuation of similar activities for the last two years, and these activities are set out in Clauses (a) and (b) and these two activities are (a) that during the two months strike between 12-6-1951 and 13-8-1951, in the Cooper Engineering Works at Satara, the petitioner and his associates used to intimidate the workers in the factory by threats of bastinadoing, killing, maiming in order to compel the workers to continue the strike, and (b) that the petitioner and his associates were making use of intimidation against the workers in order to enlist them as members of the Satara Road Mazdoor Sangh of which the petitioner is the President.
The second activity which was referred to in the notice was that the petitioner and his associates had been secretly intimidating persons from Dhumalwadi and nearby villages with bastinadoing, maiming, setting houses on fire and doing damage to their property and other unlawful things because they were not co-operating with the petitioner in his agitation against the implementation of the P.F. and C.S.H. Act, which have caused and are causing considerable alarm in the minds of the villagers and apprehension of danger to their person and property. The third activity referred to in the notice is that the petitioner and his associates have, of late, been noticed indulging extortion.
The fourth was that the petitioner and his associates were also understood to be in possession of unlicensed fire-arms, which has been causing considerable alarm and spreading a feeling of insecurity of life and property in the minds of the villagers from Satara Road and the neighbouring villages and the Cooper Companys employees. It was also stated in this notice that the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner by reason of apprehension of danger and harm to their person and property.
The activities which were referred to in the notice were mentioned in order to make out a case against the petitioner that these activities had caused and were calculated to cause alarm, danger, and harm to person and property in the Satara Road and the surrounding area. Having held an inquiry the learned District Magistrate came to the conclusion that all the grounds mentioned in the notice had been established except the one ground with regard to the petitioner being in possession of unlicensed fire-arms,
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
