Point of Law: Criminal Intimidation - Initiation of externment proceedings - There was no proper application of mind by externing authority and subjective satisfaction arrived at by authorities stood vitiated and petitioner is entitled to benefit of same.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and heard finally.

2. The petition is filed seeking the following substantive relief :

“b. The order, dated 22/06/2021, of The Divisional Commissioner, Pune passed in Externment Appeal (No.140/2020) and also the order, dated 06/11/2020, of the Deputy commissioner of police, zone 2, Pune, passed in Externment case (order no.18/2020) may kindly be quashed and set-aside;”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 5.8.2020, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Swargate Division, Pune issued a show-cause notice under section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 proposing the externment of the petitioner for a period of two years from the jurisdiction of Pune Commissionerate, Pimpri-Chinchwad Commissionerate, Pune city and the entire district. The enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Swargate Division, Pune. He submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone 2, Pune. On 6.11.2021, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pune ordered externment of the petitioner for a period of 2 years from the jurisdiction of Pune Commissionerate, Pimpri-Chinchwad Commissionerate, Pune city and the entire district.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune (Revenue), Pune Division, Pune. The said appellate authority partly allowed the appeal by order dated 22nd June, 2021 thereby curtailing the period of externment from two years to one year. Being aggrieved by both the orders, this petition is filed.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, there is no discussion in the impugned order showing a live link between the offences registered against the petitioner, which are mentioned in the impugned order and initiation of the externment proceedings against the petitioner. It is submitted that out of seven offences, the petitioner has been acquitted from four offences and only three offences were remaining by the time the externment proceedings were concluded by the first authority. It is submitted that in the offence registered as C.R. No.169 of 2012 at Rajgad police station, the petitioner has been acquitted. The learned Counsel invited our attention to the alleged in-camera statements recorded by the concerned authorities and submitted that there are no material particulars of the said incidents, as alleged in the statements, as to the date and time they had taken place. It is submitted that the concerned authorities failed to establish a live link between the offences pending against the petitioner wherein investigation/trial is pending and it has any nexus with the initiation of externment proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petition deserves to be allowed.

6. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the Respondent – State relying upon the reasons recorded in the impugned orders and relevant documents submitted that the alleged activities of the petitioner caused danger to the life and property of citizens residing in the vicinity and ultimately gave rise for initiation of externment proceedings against the petitioner. It is submitted that the concerned authority has recorded in-camera statements of the witnesses wherein it is alleged that due to terror created by the petitioner, the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against him due to fear to their person and property.

7. We have given due consideration to the rival submissions. With the able assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned APP, we have carefully perused the reasons assigned by both the authorities. It appears that in – camera statements of two witnesses were recorded by the concerned authority. We have seen the contents of the said statements. The gist of the said statements has been reproduced in the petition