Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a 58-year-old retired resident of Shrivardhan, filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Shrivardhan Division, and the appellate order of the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division. The dispute arose under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, which empowers authorities to extern individuals to prevent commission of offences. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 9 December 2019 under Section 59 of the Act, proposing externment under Section 57(1)(a) from the districts of Raigad, Mumbai, Palghar, Thane, Ratnagiri, Sindhudurg and Pune. The petitioner replied to the notice. On 28 January 2021, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer passed an externment order externing the petitioner from six talukas of Raigad district, namely Shrivardhan, Mhasala, Tala, Mahad, Poladpur and Murud, for a period of one year. The order relied on nine offences registered between 2011 and 2018, including FIRs under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner's appeal under Section 60 of the Act was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner on 23 March 2021, leading to the present writ petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Externment Proceedings - Show Cause Notice Must Disclose Material Allegations - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Sections 56, 59 - The petitioner contended that the show cause notice contained only general allegations and did not mention two FIRs which were later relied upon in the externment order. The High Court found that the externing authority relied upon FIR No.19 of 2019 and FIR No.32 of 2019 not mentioned in the show cause notice, thereby depriving the petitioner of reasonable opportunity to explain. Held that the externment order was invalid for violating natural justice (Paras 4, 11). B) Criminal Law - Externment - Live Link Requirement - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 57(1)(a) - The offences registered against the petitioner spanned 2011 to 2018, while the externment order was passed in 2021 after show cause notice in 2019. The court found no discussion of live link between the last offence and initiation of proceedings; the delay of over one and a half years rendered the order unsustainable. Held that externment based on stale offences without live link cannot legally be sustained (Paras 4, 9). C) Criminal Law - Externment - Excessive Territorial Externment Requires Reasons - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 57(1)(a) - The petitioner was externed from six talukas of Raigad District though all offences were registered at Shrivardhan Police Station. The court held that while the authority may have jurisdiction, it must give reasons for externment from adjoining talukas where no offence was registered; the impugned order lacked such discussion. Held that externment from six talukas was excessive and arbitrary (Para 10). D) Criminal Law - Externment - Effect of Acquittal - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - The petitioner was acquitted in C.R. No.21 of 2011, but the externment order did not mention acquittal and did not rely on that offence. The court observed that ignoring acquittal while considering other cases reflects non-application of mind and vitiates subjective satisfaction. Held that acquittal must be taken into account (Para 11). E) Criminal Law - Externment - Subjective Satisfaction and Reasoned Order - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 57(1)(a) - The externment order contained only casual reference to witnesses' statements without dates or specific instances and lacked a live link between offences and proceedings. The court held that preventive action curtails personal liberty and must be based on specific material and reasoned order; the absence of subjective satisfaction rendered the externment order and appellate order liable to be set aside. Held that impugned orders were quashed for non-application of mind (Paras 8-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order dated 28 January 2021 and appellate order dated 23 March 2021 are legal, valid, and proper in light of lack of live link, reliance on undisclosed FIRs, and absence of reasons for externment from six talukas.
Final Decision
The High Court held that the externment order dated 28 January 2021 and appellate order dated 23 March 2021 were unsustainable due to lack of live link between offences and proceedings, reliance on FIRs not mentioned in show cause notice, absence of reasons for externment from six talukas, and failure to consider acquittal. The petition was allowed and the impugned orders were quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on material disclosed in show cause notice
- live link required between offences and externment proceedings
- reasons necessary for externment from multiple talukas
- acquittal in prior offences must be considered
- subjective satisfaction must be based on specific instances and not stale or remote offences
- personal liberty cannot be curtailed by general allegations.
