Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ashish Makeshwar, challenged an externment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati, under Section 56(1)(a)&(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, directing him to remove himself from Amravati District for two years. The order was based on three criminal cases registered against him at Gadge Nagar police station: Crime No. 884/2019 under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149 IPC (pending in court); Crime No. 2171/2021 under Sections 4/25 of Arms Act, 109, 188, 269, 270, 271, 291 IPC read with Epidemic Disease Act and Disaster Management Act (under investigation); and Crime No. 2857/2021 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 435 IPC (under investigation). Additionally, the authority relied on confidential in-camera statements of two witnesses. The petitioner contended that the externment order was passed without proper application of mind, as one of the crimes (Crime No. 884/2019) had resulted in acquittal, which was not considered. The court examined the record and found that the authority had not applied its mind to the fact of acquittal in Crime No. 884/2019, and the in-camera statements were not properly recorded or considered. The court held that the subjective satisfaction required for externment was vitiated by non-application of mind. Consequently, the court quashed the externment order dated 05.04.2022 and the appellate order dated 28.09.2022, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Externment - Section 56 Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Subjective Satisfaction - The externment order must be based on proper application of mind to the material on record, including in-camera statements and crimes registered. The court found that the authority failed to consider the acquittal in one crime and did not properly assess the confidential statements, leading to non-application of mind. Held that the order was unsustainable and quashed. (Paras 4-8)
B) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56 Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - In-camera Statements - The confidential statements of witnesses must be recorded and considered in accordance with law. The court noted that the statements were not properly recorded and the authority did not apply its mind to their contents. Held that the externment order based on such defective material cannot stand. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 was valid and based on proper application of mind
Final Decision
The court quashed the externment order dated 05.04.2022 passed by respondent No.3 and the appellate order dated 28.09.2022 passed by respondent No.2. The petition was allowed.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 requires subjective satisfaction based on material
- non-application of mind vitiates order
- in-camera statements must be recorded and considered properly
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (03) 155
Criminal Writ Petition No. 96 of 2023
Mr. S. B. Gandhe for petitioner, Mr. S. A. Ashirgade, A.P.P. for respondents
Ashish S/o. Samadhan Makeshwar
State of Maharashtra, The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati, Police Station Officer, Police Station, Gadge Nagar, Amravati
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging externment order under Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951
Remedy Sought
Quashing of externment order dated 05.04.2022 and appellate order dated 28.09.2022
Filing Reason
Petitioner aggrieved by externment order passed without proper application of mind and based on defective material
Previous Decisions
Externment order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati on 05.04.2022; confirmed by Divisional Commissioner, Amravati on 28.09.2022 in appeal
Issues
Whether the externment order under Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 was based on proper application of mind
Whether the authority considered the acquittal in Crime No. 884/2019
Whether the in-camera statements were properly recorded and considered
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the externment order was passed without application of mind as one crime resulted in acquittal, which was not considered.
Respondents supported the order stating it was based on material including crimes and confidential statements.
Ratio Decidendi
An externment order under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 requires the authority to apply its mind to all relevant material, including the outcome of criminal cases. Failure to consider an acquittal and defective recording of in-camera statements vitiates the subjective satisfaction, rendering the order unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of his externment dated 05.04.2022 passed by respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati as well as the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by respondent No.2 – Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, whereby the respondent No.2 confirmed the order of externment in appeal.
The respondent No.3, by invoking the provisions of Section 56 Sub-section (1), clauses (a)&(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, ordered externment of the petitioner and directed him to remove himself outside the limits of Amravati District for a period of two years.
Procedural History
The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati passed an externment order on 05.04.2022 under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The petitioner appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, who confirmed the order on 28.09.2022. The petitioner then filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was heard and allowed on 13.03.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951: 56(1)(a), 56(1)(b)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 109, 188, 269, 270, 271, 291, 427, 435
- Arms Act, 1959: 4, 25
- Epidemic Disease Act, 1897: 2, 3, 4
- Disaster Management Act, 2005: 51(b)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 110(e), 110(g)
