Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.R. Khanna and Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ.
Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra
Crl. A No. 14 of 1972.
Decided On : 11 December 1972
CRIMINAL LAW - BOMBAY POLICE ACT, 1951 - SECTION 56 - EXTERNMENT ORDER - VALIDITY - NOTICE - VAGUENESS - RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF GENERAL NATURE OF MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS - REASONED ORDER - EXTENT OF EXTERNMENT ORDER - REASONABLENESS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar, was served with a notice under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, alleging that his acts and movements were causing harm, alarm, and danger to residents of certain localities within the jurisdiction of Vile Parle Police Station. He was given an opportunity to explain and examine witnesses to refute the allegations. The Deputy Commissioner of Police passed an order externing him from the limits of Greater Bombay and the District of Thana for a period of two years. The appellant challenged the order in the Bombay High Court, which dismissed his petition. He then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the notice issued to the appellant was not vague and that he was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Court also held that the externing authority and the State Government were not required to give reasoned orders, as this would defeat the purpose of the externment proceedings. The Court further held that the extent of the externment order was reasonable in the circumstances of the case, as the appellant's activities were not confined to a specific locality.
Issues: 1. Whether the notice issued to the appellant was vague and violated his right to a fair hearing? 2. Whether the externing authority and the State Government were required to give reasoned orders? 3. Whether the extent of the externment order was reasonable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the notice issued to the appellant was not vague, as it informed him of the general nature of the material allegations against him. The Court noted that the purpose of an externment proceeding is to prevent witnesses from being intimidated or harassed, and that a full disclosure of particulars would defeat this purpose. 2. The Court held that the externing authority and the State Government were not required to give reasoned orders, as this would defeat the purpose of the externment proceedings. The Court noted that the externing authority is required to consider the evidence in the case, but that a reasoned order would make it easy to identify the witnesses who were unwilling to depose in public. 3. The Court held that the extent of the externment order was reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The Court noted that the appellant's activities were not confined to a specific locality, and that a larger area had to be included in the externment order to isolate him from his moorings.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
2. On 9th October, 1969, a notice of even date was served on the appellant under section 59 of the Bombay Police-Act XXII of 1951, asking him to appear before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, ‘M’ Division, Bombay, in answer to the allegations contained in the notice. Briefly, the allegations were that the appellant’s acts and movements were causing harm, alarm and danger to the residents of certain localities within the jurisdiction of Vile Parle Police Station, that he was given to assaulting the residents of those localities either be cause they were suspected to be police informants or because they failed to accede to the demands of money, that he had committed robberies in the particular localities, that since March 1969, he had committed several acts of the above description and that witnesses were not willing to come forward to depose against him in public The appellant appeared before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, offered his explanation and examined 16 witnesses to refute the allegations. He contended that the allegations were vague and general, that they were made at the instance of one Damayanti Deshpande who was inimical to him, that he was a social worker of some standing, that he was a member of the Congress party and that in two criminal cases which were filed against him he was acquitted in spite of the evidence led by the prosecution.
3. Later, the appellant was heard by Shri G.M. Nadkarni, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-IV, Greater Bombay. On a consideration of the explanation and the evidence tendered by the appellant, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 23rd July, 1970, under section 59 of the Act, externing him from the limits of Greater Bombay and the District of Thana, for a period of two years. The order of externment was directed to take effect within two days of the decision of two criminal cases which were then pending against the appellant and in case he was sentenced in the aforesaid cases to a term of imprisonment, the order was to take effect within two days from the date of bis release from jail. Against that order, the appellant filed an appeal under section 60 of the Act, to the 2nd respondent, the Government of Maharashtra, but that appeal was dismissed on 20th May, 1971, save with the modification that the externment was to be effective from 31st May, 1971.
4. The appellant then filed a petition in the Bombay High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challenge the order of externment. Two contentions were made in the High Court on behalf of the appellant; one, that the allegations contained in the show-cause notice were too vague to afford him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and two, that his activities were at best confined to specific localities within the jurisdiction of the Vile Parle Police Station and therefore the order asking him to remove himself from the limits of the Districts of Greater Bombay and Thana was excessive and unreasonable. On the first contention, reliance was placed by the appellant on the judgment dated 29th April, 1971 of a Division Bench of the Bombay High dourt in Ciminal Application No. 332 of 1971, in which a similar notice was struck down on the ground of vagueness. The learned Judges declined to follow that judgment as, in their opinion, it was inconsistent with the view taken by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Mehboob Khan Usman Khan1. On the second contention, distinguishing the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court in Balu Shivling Dombe v. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpar2, and following a judgment dated 17th March, 1968 of another Division Bench in Criminal Appln. No. 1427 of 1968, the learned Judge
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
