IMPORTANT POINT
Externment order can be passed when the externee sufferred detention under penal measures for the activities enumerated. under Section 56 of Bombay Police Act,1951.

JUDGMENT

P.R. Gokul Krishnan C.J.- This petition is to quash the order of externment of the petitioner, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city, and also the order in Appeal, passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Gujarat.

2. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated July 1987, under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 for the activities enumerated under Section 56 of the Act. The show cause notice clearly states that the petitioner is a dangerous and aggressive person and he is indulging in the acts of force and violence. It further states that the petitioner is indulging in such activities with the help of his companions on the Sarkhej Highway Road, near the end of the road going towards Vejalpur, near Haji Bawa's Kui, near Sonal Cinema, in Juhapura, near Juhapura Agro Petrol Pump and near Cemetery besides Sonal Cinema. These areas are situated within the jurisdiction of Satellite Police Station. It is further stated in the notice that such offences were committed from the month of June 1986. It has also been stated that the witnesses are not desirous of coming forward to give their depositions openly against the petitioner because of the fear as regards the safety of their person and properties. The allegations levelled against the petitioner, in the show cause notice, are as under:-

You are snatching away money from the innocent persons residing in the above stated areas or passing by from there or doing business, by the way of hitting slap or showing Rampuri knife or threatening as to kill by showing revolver.

With the help of your companions, you are hitting to the innocent persons residing in the above stated areas or passing by from there and believing to be informer to the police.

You are playing with modesty of the ladies residing in above stated areas or passing by from there by showing revolver."

The petitioner examined three witnesses for his defence. The Externing Authority had before it the statements of 17 persons, who are not willing to come forward to depose against the petitioner out of fear for their lives and properties. Considering for explanation and the depositions of the defence witnesses, the Externing Authority has externed the petitioner for a period of two years from Ahmedabad city, Ahmedabad Rural area, Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana Districts. The Externing Authority has also specifically stated that if the petitioner is not externed from the contiguous districts, he will perpetuate, with his companions and agents, in committing such offences from the surrounding Districts also. In Appeal, the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, has confirmed the order of externment To quash these proceedings, the petitioner has come forward by way of this Special Criminal Application, before this Court.

3. Mr. Bhargav Bhatt for Mr. M.B. Ahuja, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Externing Authority did not take into consideration the complaint C.R. No. 8/88 filed at Karanj Police Station. According to the learned Counsel, on January 9, 1988 at Karanj Police Station C.R. No. 8/88 was registered for offences under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and on 23-1-88 C.R. No. 58/88 was registered for offences under Sections 366, 387 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was already under detention even at the time of serving of show cause notice for externment and subsequently and as such the authority should not have resorted to the Bombay Police Act for the purpose of externment of petitioner. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that inasmuch as the above referred offences registered as C.R. No. 8/88 and C.R. No. 58/88, have not been taken into consideration, the Externing Authority has mechanically and without application of mind passed the said Externment Order. The second contention taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the notice