Case Note & Summary
The petitioner challenged an externment order passed under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Panvel, which was confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division. The dispute arose from a show cause notice issued under Section 59 of the Act alleging the petitioner's involvement in criminal offences and relying on in-camera statements of witnesses A and B. The show cause notice was issued on 17 June 2019, and the petitioner filed a reply on 30 September 2019. The Deputy Commissioner of Police passed an externment order on 6 January 2021 externing the petitioner from Panvel and Thane districts. The petitioner's appeal under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act was rejected on 23 March 2021 by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, confirming the externment order. The petitioner then filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court noted that the show cause notice mentioned the recording of witness statements but did not provide the gist of the general nature of allegations or the dates of the incidents. The offences registered against the petitioner included C.R. No. 459/2018 under Sections 392, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and other offences within the jurisdiction of Kharghar Police Station. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was vague, did not disclose the alleged offences, and that there was no live link between the alleged offences and the externment order. The petitioner also contended that externment from two districts without assigning reasons was illegal. The respondent State argued that the authorities had assigned detailed reasons, that a number of offences were registered against the petitioner, and that in-camera statements of witnesses A and B demonstrated the petitioner's dangerous activities. The High Court, after examining the record, found that the show cause notice was defective because it only cursorily mentioned the recording of witness statements without including the gist of allegations or the period of incidents. The externing authority did not specifically discuss what witnesses A and B had stated and did not record a finding that the witnesses were unwilling to come forward in public due to apprehension to their safety. The court held that mere registration of offences was not a ground to extern the petitioner from two districts without specific reasons, especially when all offences were within one police station jurisdiction. The court relied on Yashwant Damodar Patil v. Hemant Karkare and Pandharinath Shridhar v. Deputy Commissioner of Police to emphasize that the show cause notice must contain the general nature of material allegations and the period of alleged acts. The court also observed that externment proceedings curtail fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution, and therefore, strict compliance with Sections 56 and 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act is mandatory. The court concluded that the externment order could not be legally sustained and allowed the writ petition. The impugned externment order dated 23 March 2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2021 was quashed and set aside. The court clarified that the order was passed in the peculiar facts of the case and the petitioner would not derive any benefit in other proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Externment Proceedings - Show Cause Notice Requirements - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Sections 56, 59 - The show cause notice issued under Section 59 did not disclose the gist of general nature of allegations made by witnesses A and B or the dates of alleged incidents, which affected the petitioner's right to effectively reply. Held that the notice must contain general nature of material allegations and period of alleged acts to enable a meaningful representation. (Paras 6, 8-9) B) Criminal Law - Externment - Necessity of Finding Witnesses Unwilling - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 56 - To legally sustain an externment order, the authority must specifically record that witnesses are unwilling to come forward in public to give evidence due to apprehension to safety of person or property. In this case, the externing authority failed to record such specific findings. Held that absence of this mandatory finding vitiates the externment order. (Paras 8-10) C) Criminal Law - Externment - Live Link and Reasons for Multi-District Externment - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 56 - Mere registration of multiple offences against the petitioner was not sufficient to order externment; the authority must show a live link between the alleged offences and the externment proceedings. Externment from two districts (Panvel and Thane) without specific reasons was impermissible when all offences were registered within one police station jurisdiction. Held that externment from adjoining districts requires specific reasons and cannot be based solely on number of cases. (Paras 7-8) D) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Right to Movement and Residence - Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(d), (e); Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Sections 56, 59 - Externment proceedings curtail a person's fundamental right to stay at a place of choice and to move freely; therefore, the procedure prescribed under Sections 56 and 59 must be scrupulously followed. Vague allegations in the show cause notice and absence of specific findings infringed the petitioner's right to effectively represent. Held that strict compliance with statutory mandates is essential to protect fundamental rights. (Paras 9, 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order dated 23 March 2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division confirming the externment order dated 6 January 2021 was legally sustainable under Sections 56 and 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, given alleged defects in the show cause notice and absence of specific findings.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned externment order dated 23 March 2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2021 was quashed and set aside. Rule was made absolute. The court clarified that the order was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner would not derive any benefit in other proceedings, including trials arising out of the offences registered against him.
Law Points
- Show cause notice under Section 59 must contain gist of general nature of material allegations and period of alleged acts
- externment order under Section 56 requires specific finding of witnesses' unwillingness to come forward due to apprehension
- mere number of offences insufficient
- live link required between offences and externment proceedings
- multi-district externment requires specific reasons
- strict compliance with procedural safeguards due to curtailment of fundamental rights
