Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prakash D.Naik, J.
Vijay Dhanjai Pawar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1456 of 2022
Decided On : 19-09-2022
Externment - Challenge to externment order under Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act - Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act and highlighted the requirement that witnesses must be unwilling to depose against the externee. The court referred to the decision in the case of Yashwant Damodar Patil Vs. Hemant Karkare, emphasizing the conditions for externment under the relevant clauses of the Act. The Full Bench decision in the case of Sumit Ramkrishna Maraskolhe Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur was also cited, emphasizing the necessity of the authority's application of mind to the material on record.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner challenged the order of externment issued under Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act. The show cause notice alleged the Petitioner's involvement in cognizable offences, and the externment order was modified by the appellate authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the show cause notice and the order of externment did not adequately demonstrate the satisfaction required for externment under Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act. The court set aside the orders of externment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the externment order, the sufficiency of the show cause notice, and the satisfaction required for externment under Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the satisfaction required for externment under Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act was not adequately demonstrated in the show cause notice and the order of externment, leading to the quashing of the orders.
Final Decision: The Criminal Writ Petition was allowed, and the orders of externment were quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner has challenged the order of externment dtd. 10/7/2021 issued by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Pune under Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, and order dtd. 18/2/2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune (appellate authority) to the extent of confirming externment from Pimpri Chinchwad Police commissionerate area, Pune city commssionerate Haveli Maval, Mulshi Bhor, Shirur and Khed.
2. Show cause notice dtd. 3/5/2021 was issued against the Petitioner by Assistant Commissioner Pune, Pimpri Division, Pimpri Chinchwad. Thereafter, another notice dtd. 11/6/2021 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1. The externment order dtd. 10/7/2021 was issued by Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-1 and Pimpari Chinchwad Police Commissionerate and Pune Rural area for a period of twenty four months.
3. The Petitioner preferred appeal before Divisional Commissioner Pune, challenging externment order. The Appellate authority modified the order of externment by directing that, petitioner is externed for two years from Pimpri Chinchwad Police Commssionerate, Pune City commissionrate and adjoining areas Haveli, Maval Malshi Bhor, Shirur and Khed.
4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, the order of externment is contrary to law. The incidents considered for issuing the externment are stale. The appellate authority has modified the order qua the areas of externment, however confirmed the externment order without appreciating the illegality in the order. The show cause notice was issued alleging that, the Petitioner was proposed to be externed for a period of two years under sec. 56(1)(a)(b). The show cause notice is silent, as far as satisfaction to be recorded that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to depose against the Petitioner qua Sec. 56(1)(a) (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act. In the order of externment the authority has tried to suggest that the witnesses are not coming forward to deposes against the Petitioner in relation to allegations under Sec. 56(1)(a) as well as 56(1)(b). Hence, the order of externment is bad in law. The requirement of law to initiate the proceeding under Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) is that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to dispose against the externee. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court, in the case of Yashwant Damodar Patil Vs. Hemant Karkare, D.C.P. and Anr. 1989 (3) Maharashtra Law Journal 1111.[Yashwant Damodar Patil Vs. Hemant Karkar, D.C.P. and Anr. 1989 (3) Maharashtra Law Journal 1111.]
5. Learned APP submits that, there is no infirmity in the order. The appellate authority has applied mind and modified the order of externment. The show cause notice refers to cases registered against the Petitioner, the statements of two witnesses recorded by the concerned Police Station and acts committed by externee. The initiation of proceeding under Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act is preventive measure. The notice and order of externment record the satisfaction for externing the Petitioner. The Petitioner is involved in three cognizable offences registered against him. The externing authority was satisfied that, it is necessary to initiate preventive measures against the Petitioner. The requisite requirement to initiate action under Sec. 56(1)(a) (b) are reflected in the order of externment. He relied on Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sumit Ramkrishna Maraskolhe Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 1961. (F.B.) 2.
6. Perused documents on record. A.C.P. has issued the notice dtd. 3/5/2021. The title of the said notice indicated that it was issued under Sec. 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act. Rreference is made to three cases registered against Petitioner. C.R. No.101 of 2020 was registered for offences under Sec. 325, 323, 504, 427 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, C.R. No.653 of 2020 was registered for offences under Sectgion 324, 141, 143, 144, 147
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for the authority to demonstrate the satisfaction required for externment under Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, as hi....
The court established that externment orders require a clear connection to recent criminal activity and strict adherence to procedural safeguards to protect individual liberties.
An externment order under the Maharashtra Police Act must be based on objective material demonstrating a live link between past actions and current threats, with proper verification of witness statem....
Externment orders under the Maharashtra Police Act must be supported by objective evidence and cannot infringe upon the fundamental right to free movement without justifiable grounds.
If old offences are pending against the petitioner and in case, the live link is not established between the initiation of externment proceedings and said pending old offences, in that case, the orde....
The court established that externment orders under the Maharashtra Police Act can be upheld when there is sufficient evidence of a threat to public safety, and that authorities must demonstrate subje....
Externment orders must be based on objective material and specific reasons; failure to consider bail status and due process renders such orders invalid.
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
