BOMBAY HIGH COURT
KURDUKAR AND AGARWAL, JJ.
Rajendra Damodar Vaity, Petitioner
Versus
Hemant Karkare and another, Respondents
Criminal Writ Petn. No. 298 of 1989
Decided on : 27-6-1989
EXTERNMENT - BOMBAY POLICE ACT, 1951 - SECTION 56(1)(B) - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE OF THE SECTION - OFFENCES INVOLVING FORCE OR VIOLENCE - REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR BELIEVING THAT A PERSON IS ENGAGED OR IS ABOUT TO BE ENGAGED IN THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE INVOLVING FORCE OR VIOLENCE - WITNESSES NOT WILLING TO COME FORWARD TO GIVE EVIDENCE IN PUBLIC - ORDER OFEXTERNMENT - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was externed from the revenue districts of Thane and Greater Bombay for a period of two years under Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The order was passed on the basis of the petitioner's criminal activities, which had created a terror in the minds of the people residing in the locality. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that the externing authority had taken into consideration the cases pending in the Courts of law in which witnesses are yet to be examined and hence subjective satisfaction that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner is arrived at mechanically and it discloses clear non-application of the mind on the part of the externing authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned order was valid and that there was no error or illegality in the same. The court found that the petitioner's criminal activities fell within the first clause of Section 56(1)(b) of the Act, namely, "there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence". The court also held that the externing authority was justified in relying on the statements of the witnesses who had stated that they were not prepared to lodge a complaint against the petitioner or give evidence against him in public.
Issues: Whether the externing authority had taken into consideration the cases pending in the Courts of law in which witnesses are yet to be examined and hence subjective satisfaction that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner is arrived at mechanically and it discloses clear non-application of the mind on the part of the externing authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the first part of Section 56(1)(b) regarding commission of the offence involving violence or force are not only referable to offences punishable under Chapters XII, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, but may be covered by any other statute. It is for this specific reason, in our opinion, separate category of offences involving violence and force has been carved out and if the externing authority is satisfied that criminal activities of the externee are offences involving force and violence, the Externing Authority can take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the order of externment.
KURDUKAR, J. :- This writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is filed by Rajendra Damodar Vaity - the petitioner, who has suffered an order of externment under S.56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Thane, on 19th July 1989, issued a show cause notice under S.59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the petitioner as to why proceedings under S.56(1)(a) and (b) of the Act be not initiated against him on the basis of the criminal activities set out in the said notice. The notice recites that the petitioner resides in the locality behind J.J. Chemical Company which falls within the jurisdiction of Vartak Nagar Police Station, Thane. Chirag Nagar and Laxmi Nagar localities are also situate adjacent to the said J.J. Chemical Company. The petitioner and his associates who possess criminal mentality (Goondas) always move in that locality carrying deadly weapons like swords, guptis and without any fault on the part of the people who reside in that locality, they pick up quarrels on false pretext and assault them. Their activities have created a terror in the said locality and the persons residing in that locality are scared. There is great danger to the public order and the safety of these persons. In the said locality, the petitioner and his associates have assaulted and committed several offences. People are scared to lodge any complaint or give evidence in public against the petitioner. Despite this some people have lodged complaints against the petitioner and those complaints have been enumerated in the said notice. The notice then recites that in spite of these criminal complaints which are lodged in the Court, the petitioner has not desisted from repeating such criminal activities and there is no improvement in his conduct. The petitioner and his associates are accustomed to repeat such offences. People residing in the locality are very much scared and they are living under constant terror and because of the petitioner's activities they are not prepared to come forward and give evidence in public. In these circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner of Police has called upon the petitioner to file his reply as to why he should not be externed for a period of two years from the revenue districts of Thane and Greater Bombay. This notice also called upon the petitioner to give such evidence oral and documentary as he deems fit to defend his case.
3. After holding the enquiry, the Deputy Police Commissioner was subjectively satisfied that the petitioner's criminal activities have created terror in the minds of the people residing in that locality and those people feel insecured because of these criminal activities. The Deputy Commissioner of Police also came to the conclusion on the basis of the material produced before him that the petitioner is likely to continue his criminal activities in future with the aid of his associates and with a view to preventing him from creating situation of terror and insecurity in the minds of the people residing in those localities, if is necessary to extern the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, therefore, passed the order of externment externing the petitioner for a period of two years from the revenue districts of Thane and Greater Bombay. It must be stated that this order was made under S.56(1)(b) of the Act. It is dated 9th January 1989 and annexed to the petition at Exhibit 'D'.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority under S.60 of the Act. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated February 26, 1989, confirmed the order of externment. It is against these orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to this Court.
5. Mr. Chitnis, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition urged that the externing authority has taken into consideration the cases pending in the Courts of law in which witnesses are yet to be examined
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.