The importance of recording incamera statements and establishing a live link between the offences and the proceedings is crucial in determining the legality of an externment order.

M.G. Giratkar, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged externment order passed by respondent no.1/Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur in Appeal No.13 of 2017 and the order No.04 of 2017, dt.10.4.2017 passed by respondent no.3/Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone/Circle No.1, Nagpur.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner is a businessman running a hotel by name ‘Sahil Restaurant’ situated on Khadgaon Road, Wadi. He also possesses a godown, which he used to give on rent. The petitioner is subjected to false prosecution by Police Authorities merely on suspicion.

4. For the first time, a show cause notice u/s.59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 was issued by the Assistant Police Commissioner, M.I.D.C. Division, Wadi, District Nagpur, on 15.3.2017 for action under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner went to the Office of respondent no.2 along with witnesses to furnish his explanation to the charges. However, respondent no.2 was not present. Petitioner time to time went to his Office, but he was not present. Therefore, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before forming an opinion.

5. It is submitted that the following are four offences shown pending against the petitioner :      

6. It is submitted that the notice prima facie is illegal. The petitioner is falsely implicated in the offences. In one of the offences he is acquitted. Again notice was issued on 24.3.2017. In the said notice, incamera statements of witnesses were not mentioned. Petitioner had no opportunity to explain the show cause notice. The impugned order came to be passed on 10.4.2017. The impugned order also does not show about the incamera statements of witnesses.

7. The impugned order dt.10.4.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur in Appeal No.13 of 2017. The said appeal was dismissed on 3rd June, 2017, without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner.

8. It is submitted that the last offence shown against the petitioner is of the year 2016. The show cause notice is of the year 2017 and therefore, there is no live link. At last, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

9. Heard Mr. A.B. Moon, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that in the show cause notice dt.24.3.2017, there is no reference of incamera statements. Therefore, petitioner had no any opportunity to give explanation. The impugned order also does not show any incamera statements nor the time and date of recording statements.

10. Learned Counsel has submitted that two offences are in respect of Police Station, Wadi and one offence is in respect of Police Station, Kalmeshwar. He is wrongly externed from whole Nagpur District for a period of one year. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has pointed out the following decisions :

a. Anna s/o. Bhimrao Dhavale vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, 2017 AllMR(Cri) 2099.

b. Bal @ Rajvardhan Vitthalrao Nimbalkar vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division and Others, 2016 AllMR(Cri) 3994.

c. Rohit s/o. Ramesh Nalawade vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, 2017 AllMR(Cri) 3443.

d.