Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shubham Kodwate, challenged the externment order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Nagpur City, under Section 56(1)(a)&(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, directing him to remove himself from Nagpur District for two years. The order was confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner on 16.06.2022. The externment was based on five crimes registered against the petitioner at Pratap Nagar police station between 2015 and 2021, involving offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, and on confidential in-camera statements of two witnesses. The petitioner argued that the crimes were not sufficient to brand him as a habitual offender and that the in-camera statements were vague. The court examined the material and found that the crimes were not of a nature to indicate that the petitioner was a habitual offender or dangerous person. The in-camera statements merely expressed fear without specific instances. The court held that the subjective satisfaction of the externing authority was not based on proper material and quashed both the externment order and the appellate order.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(a)&(b) - Habitual Offender - The externment order was based on five crimes and in-camera statements of two witnesses. The court held that the crimes were not sufficient to conclude that the petitioner was a habitual offender or dangerous person. The in-camera statements were vague and did not provide specific instances of the petitioner's activities. The court found that the subjective satisfaction of the externing authority was not based on proper material. (Paras 1-10) B) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - In-Camera Statements - Section 56 - The court held that the in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' were vague and did not disclose any specific acts of the petitioner that would warrant externment. The statements merely expressed fear without providing concrete details. Therefore, the externment order was not sustainable. (Paras 4-10) C) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Subjective Satisfaction - Section 56 - The court held that the subjective satisfaction of the externing authority must be based on credible material. In this case, the material relied upon was insufficient to justify the externment order. The court quashed the externment order and the appellate order confirming it. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a)&(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 against the petitioner was sustainable on the basis of five crimes and confidential in-camera statements of two witnesses.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the externment order dated 24.02.2022 and the appellate order dated 16.06.2022, and set aside the externment of the petitioner.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 requires material to show that the person is a habitual offender or dangerous person
- mere registration of crimes and vague in-camera statements are insufficient
