Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sachin Sanjay Raut, filed a criminal writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur seeking quashing of an externment order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati, under Section 56(1)(a) & (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and the appellate order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, confirming the externment. The externment order was based on eight criminal cases registered against the petitioner at Gadge Nagar Police Station between 2018 and 2021, involving offences under the Indian Penal Code such as voluntarily causing hurt, robbery, criminal intimidation, etc. The petitioner argued that the externment order was passed without proper application of mind and that the authority did not record subjective satisfaction that his movements were causing harm or danger to the public. The respondents contended that the petitioner was a habitual offender and his externment was necessary to maintain public order. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 56(1)(a) & (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and held that the externment order was unsustainable as the authority had not recorded any subjective satisfaction that the petitioner's movements were causing harm or danger to the public. The court noted that mere registration of criminal cases does not automatically justify externment; the authority must apply its mind to the material and record reasons for its satisfaction. The appellate authority also failed to consider the petitioner's contentions and did not apply its mind to the legality of the externment order. Consequently, the High Court quashed both the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(a) & (b) - Subjective Satisfaction - The externment order was quashed as the authority failed to record subjective satisfaction that the petitioner's movements were causing harm or danger to the public. Mere registration of multiple criminal cases does not automatically justify externment. The authority must apply its mind to the material on record and record reasons for its satisfaction. (Paras 1-8) B) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Appeal - Section 60 - Appellate Authority's Duty - The appellate authority failed to consider the petitioner's contentions and did not apply its mind to the legality of the externment order. The appellate order was also quashed for non-application of mind. (Paras 1-8) C) Criminal Law - Externment - Preventive Detention - Distinction - Externment is a preventive measure, not a punitive one. It cannot be used as a substitute for trial or to circumvent the criminal justice process. The authority must be satisfied that the person's activities are such that they are likely to cause harm to the public. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a) & (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and the appellate order confirming it, are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed the externment order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati, and the appellate order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati. The writ petition was allowed.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on subjective satisfaction of the authority
- mere registration of criminal cases does not justify externment
- authority must consider whether the person's movements are causing harm or danger to the public
- externment cannot be used as a substitute for trial
- appeal must be decided with due application of mind.
