Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
Ashok S/o Ramhari Gharat - Appellant
Versus
Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar - Respondent
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1469 OF 2024
Decided On : 18-02-2025
(A) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Section 56 - Externment order - The Petitioner challenged the externment order upheld by the Appellate Authority, citing violations of natural justice and failure to consider acquittals in previous cases. The court found that while the externment was justified, it should be limited to specific talukas rather than the entire district. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 13)
(B) Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice must be adhered to in administrative actions, ensuring that the individual has a fair opportunity to present their case. (Paras 6, 9)
(C) Fundamental Rights - The court emphasized the need to balance the rights of the individual against public safety concerns. (Paras 13)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner was externed for one year due to multiple criminal charges, despite acquittals in some cases. The externment was challenged on grounds of procedural impropriety and lack of consideration of acquittals.
Findings of Court:
The court modified the externment order to restrict it to specific talukas, acknowledging the need for public safety while respecting individual rights.
Issues: The main issues included whether the externment order violated principles of natural justice and whether it was excessive in scope.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the externment was warranted due to the Petitioner’s criminal activities, it should not extend beyond the areas where such activities were proven.
Result: The externment order was modified to apply only to Wadwani and Beed Talukas.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of both the sides it is heard finally.
2. By the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner impugned the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by Respondent No.1 Appellate Authority, whereby upheld order dated 19.04.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 Sub Divisional Officer @ Magistrate, Beed, externing the Petitioner for a period of one year.
3. The Police Authorities have sought to invoke Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act and issued a notice dated 06.01.2024 to the Petitioner calling upon him to submit explanation as to why he should not be externed from Beed, Dharashiv and Ahmednagar Districts because of registration of following crimes:
(i) Crime No.28 of 2016 registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 26-F, 41 of the Forest Act,
(ii) Crime No.48 of 2017 for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. read with Section 26-F, 41 of the Forest Act, Section 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Forest Act.
(iii) Crime No.137 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 26-F, 41 of the Forest Act, Section 3 and4 of the Maharashtra Forest Act,
(iv) Crime No.168 of 2022, for the offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 26-F, 41, 42 of the Forest Act and
(v) Chapter Case No.43 of 2023 under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 31.03.2023.
4. Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted his reply and stated that, he is belonging to the Agricultural family. His wife, two sons and old aged parents are dependent on his income. He has no source of income except agriculture labour work. He further stated that, Crime No.104 of 2015 registered with Neknoor Police Station against him due to bad company of other accused persons. The Police Authority filed chargesheet against him in the said crime, which is later on registered as R.C.C. No.459 of 2016. After conclusion of trial, he is acquitted in said crime. Thereafter, Crime No.34 of 2012 was registered against him with Pimpalner Police Station. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed against him, which later on registered as R.C.C. No.377 of 2013. After conclusion of the trial, he is acquitted in said crime. In crime No.28 of 2016, charge sheet was filed and it was registered as R.C.C. No.45 of 2016, but on conclusion of trial, he is acquitted on 17.05.2019. Further Crime No.48 of 2017 registered against him with Neknoor Police Station, but trial of said crime is pending. The trial of R.C.C. No.272 of 2017 and R.C.C. No.14 of 2020 are pending against him and other accused. Another Crime No.168 of 2022 was registered with Neknoor Police Station and after filing of charge sheet it is registered as R.C.C. No.193 of2023 but trial is pending. According to the Petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in all these crimes and he is having hope of his acquittal in all these crime. However, due to service of notice under Section 56(1)(A)(B) of the Maharashtra Police Act, his family is facing problems. So also, his family members are suffering agony and they are deprived from his income. It is further submitted that, hereinafter the petitioner would be obedient citizen and would became a good father for his children. However, on 19.04.2024, the Respondent No.2 passed an order and externed the Petitioner for a period of one year from entire Beed District.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed Appeal under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act. On 11.07.2024, the Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order and upheld order of externment passed by Respondent No.2 on19.04.2024.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner canvassed in vehemence that, the impugned orders passed by the Respondent Police Authorities, are with utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Therefore, bot
The court upheld the externment under the Maharashtra Police Act but limited its scope to specific talukas, balancing public safety with individual rights.
Externment orders must be based on objective material and specific reasons; failure to consider bail status and due process renders such orders invalid.
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.
Externment orders must be supported by sufficient evidence and cannot infringe on individual liberty without just cause.
Externment orders require sufficient evidence and objective material to justify action under the Maharashtra Police Act; lack of such evidence renders the orders illegal.
The court established that externment orders require a clear connection to recent criminal activity and strict adherence to procedural safeguards to protect individual liberties.
Externment orders must demonstrate a clear live-link between recent activities and the necessity for such measures.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for careful application of the provisions of the Maharashtra Police act, 1951, and the importance of subjective satisfaction in externment....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that externment orders should be based on sufficient material and restricted to the area of illegal activity of the externee.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient material and subjective satisfaction in making externment orders under Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Ac....
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
