Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Akbar Jamil Khan, challenged an externment order dated 26/11/2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Mumbai, under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, which externed him from Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburbs for one year. The order was confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, on 23/03/2021 in Appeal No.23/2021. The petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition and an Interim Application seeking stay of the externment order. The court heard the matter and reserved judgment on 11/08/2021, pronouncing it on 25/08/2021. The court examined the grounds of externment, which alleged that the petitioner habitually committed criminal acts like forcible extortion and thefts. The court noted that the externment order was based on in-camera statements and a proposal by the police. However, the court found that the authorities did not consider whether less drastic measures, such as binding over the petitioner or taking security for good behavior, could have been taken. The court also observed that the material on record was insufficient to justify the externment, as the in-camera statements did not indicate that witnesses were unwilling to come forward or that the petitioner's movements were causing alarm. The court held that the subjective satisfaction of the authority must be based on objective material and that the failure to consider alternative remedies rendered the externment order invalid. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Validity of Externment Order - The petitioner challenged an externment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Mumbai, confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division. The court held that the externment order was unsustainable as the authorities failed to consider less drastic measures and the material relied upon was insufficient to justify externment. The court emphasized that subjective satisfaction must be based on objective material and that the authority must consider whether any other less drastic remedy would suffice. (Paras 1-9) B) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Consideration of Less Drastic Measures - The court held that before passing an externment order, the authority must consider whether the alleged activities can be curbed by taking recourse to other provisions of law, such as binding over the person or taking security for good behavior. Failure to do so renders the externment order invalid. (Paras 6-9) C) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Material on Record - The court found that the material on record, including in-camera statements, did not establish that the petitioner's movements were causing alarm or that witnesses were unwilling to come forward. The externment order was based on vague and insufficient material. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 was valid and sustainable in law, and whether the authorities considered less drastic measures before ordering externment.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashing and setting aside the externment order dated 26/11/2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Mumbai, and the order dated 23/03/2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, in Appeal No.23/2021.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on credible material
- less drastic measures must be considered
- subjective satisfaction must be based on objective material
- Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951
