SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Guj) 116

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :P.R.GOKULAKRISHNAN, R.A.MEHTA
GULAMMAHOMAD NOORMAHOMAD QURESHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.CRI.A. 667 of .
Decided On : 07/28/1989

Advocates Appeared: B.D.DESAI, E.E.SAIYED, K.R.BRAHMBHATT

Headnote:

Bombay Police Act – Section 59, 60, 56 – Violence – Threats – Statement of witnesses – Petitioner was given a show cause notice under Sec. 59 of Bombay Police Act – In show cause notice following allegations have been made: It is alleged against you that you are a dangerous and desperate person and indulge in acts involving force and violence – You terrorise residents of localities with help of accomplices known as Capri Hotel near Advance Talkies Near Bhadra Tar Office near Capri Hotel around Municipal Market Navrangpura Swastik Char Rasta areas under Karanj and Navrangpura Police Stations – It is further stated that such activities were being committed since month of February 1988 and specifically it is stated that petitioner with help of his accomplices way-lay rob and extort money from persons at point of Rampuri knife and under threats of violence and that he used to purchase eatable goods from business- men of areas without payment and when legal dues are demanded he used to beat persons and threatened to kill persons with help of Rampuri knife and razor – There is a further averment in notice to effect that witnesses to above said incidents are not willing to come forward to depose against him public by reasons of apprehension on their part as regards safety of their person and property. After alleging so the show cause notice states that it is proposed to extern petitioner for a period of two years not only from City but also from contiguous districts – Alleging all these facts of case petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be externed for a period of two years from above said places – After getting reply and also examining witnesses produced by petitioner Deputy Police Commissioner who is externing authority in this case passed an order of externment on 20 externing petitioner for a period of two years – Held, next contention raised by Mr. Saiyed is that there is not even a single incident punishable under Indian Penal Code anal as such authorities should not have invoked Sec. 56 of Bombay Police Act – In paragraph supra we have extracted activities of petitioner and they clearly make out offences punishable under Indian Penal Code – Activities of petitioner endanger both person and property of people living in locality mentioned in show cause notice – It is also clear from facts of case that witnesses are not willing to come forward to depose against peti- tioner – Externing authority after properly applying its mind has come to conclusion that petitioner is dangerous and desperate person and he is a manace to society – Relevant criteria of mentioning area of activity and period of activity have been complied with in this case and necessary inference that has to be drawn by externing authority has been drawn correctly by authorities concerned after properly applying their mind – There is absolutely no infirmity or defect in issuance of show cause notice under Sec. 59 of Bombay Police Act nor any defect in order of externment passed under Sec. 56 of Bombay Police Act – Affidavit-in-reply amply bears out application of mind by externing authorities concerned and we are satisfied that order of externment was passed correctly and after proper appreciation of evidence on record – Criminal Application is Dismissed

P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, R. A. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Special Criminal Application is to issue a writ of mandamus or any. other appropriate writ order or direction to set aside and also to quash the order of externment passed by Respondent No. 2 dated 20-3-1989 and order of confirmation by Respondent No. 3 dated 7-6-1989.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was given a show cause notice. on 30-5-1988 under Sec. 59 of the Bombay Police Act. In the show cause notice the following allegations have been made: It is alleged against you that you are a dangerous and desperate person and indulge in acts involving force and violance. You terrorise the residents of the localities with the help of accomplices known as Capri Hotel near Advance Talkies Near Bhadra Tar Office near Capri Hotel around Municipal Market Navrangpura Swastik Char Rasta areas under Karanj and Navrangpura Police Stations. It is further stated that such activities were being committed since the month of February 1988 and specifically it is stated that the petitioner with the help of his accomplices way-lay rob and extort money from the persons at the point of Rampuri knife and under threats of violence and that he used to purchase eatable goods from the business- men of the areas without payment and when legal dues are demanded he used to beat the persons and threatened to kill the persons with the help of Rampuri knife and razor. There is a further averment in the notice to the effect that the witnesses to the above said incidents are not willing to come forward to depose against him public by reasons of apprehension on their part as regards safety of their person and property. After alleging so the show cause notice states that it is proposed to extern the petitioner for a period of two years not only from the City of Ahmedabad but also from the contiguous districts of Ahmedabad Rural Kheda Gandhinagar and Mehsana. Alleging all these facts of the case the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be externed for a period of two years from the above said places. After getting the reply and also examining the witnesses produced by the petitioner the Deputy Police Commissioner who is the externing authority in this case passed an order of externment on 20 externing the petitioner for a period of two years from Ahmedabad City Ahmedabad Rural Mehsana Kheda and Gandhinagar Districts.

( 3 ) IN the externment order the externing authority has specifically stated that he has considered all the evidence produced before him and that he was satisfied that the petitioner is a dangerous and desperate person and committed the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The externing authority has further stated that the petitioner performed all such activities near Capri Hotel near Advance Talkies near Bhadra Office near Municipal Market near Swastik Char Rasta. The externing authority has further stated that such type of activities were done by the externee from February 1988 in the areas mentioned in the show cause notice. There is a specific finding by the externing authority to the effect that the witnesses are not ready and willing to depose against the petitioner due to risk of their life and property.

( 4 ) AGAINST the order of externment dated 20/03/1989 the petitioner preferred an appeal under Sec. 60 of the Bombay Police Act to the Government of Gujarat. The order of the externing autho- rity was confirmed by the Government after properly applying its mind and-examining the records produced before it. As against these orders the petitioner has come forward with the present Special Criminal Application.

( 5 ) MR. E. E. Saiyed the learned Counsel appearing for the peti- tioner has taken a number of grounds in order to convince us that the order of externment cannot be sustained.

( 6 ) THE first contention raised by Mr. Saiyed is that the person who has recorded the statement is not authorised to record the statement. It is clear from the case that the statement was reco











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top