Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mohammad Atique Mohammad Tamjeed Qureshi, filed a criminal writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging two orders: an externment order dated 18/07/2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati (Respondent No.1), and an appellate order dated 07/11/2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division (Respondent No.2), which rejected his appeal. The externment order was based on seven offences registered against the petitioner between 2016 and 2023 under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, as well as two in-camera statements recorded by the police. The petitioner argued that these offences do not fall under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, which enumerates specific offences for externment, and that the in-camera statements were not properly considered, lacking subjective satisfaction. The State, represented by the learned A.P.P., contended that the petitioner was a habitual offender involved in animal slaughtering and that the in-camera statements were duly verified, and the orders were reasoned. The court examined the original record and found that the offences registered were not covered under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The court also noted that the externment order did not reflect proper application of mind to the in-camera statements. Consequently, the court held that the externment order was unsustainable and quashed both the externment order dated 18/07/2023 and the appellate order dated 07/11/2023. The petition was allowed, and rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Offences under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 are not covered under Section 56(1)(b) - The court held that the externment order cannot be based on offences that are not enumerated in Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and thus the order was unsustainable (Paras 2-6). B) Criminal Law - Externment - In-camera statements - Subjective satisfaction - The court held that merely recording in-camera statements without proper application of mind by the authority does not satisfy the requirement of subjective satisfaction under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is sustainable when the offences registered against the petitioner are under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, which are not enumerated in Section 56(1)(b), and whether the in-camera statements alone without proper application of mind can form the basis of subjective satisfaction.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The externment order dated 18/07/2023 passed by Respondent No.1 and the appellate order dated 07/11/2023 passed by Respondent No.2 are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order under Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 must be based on offences enumerated in Section 56(1)(b)
- Offences under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
- 1960 and Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act
- 1976 are not covered under Section 56(1)(b)
- In-camera statements must be duly considered and applied by the authority
- Subjective satisfaction must be based on proper application of mind
