Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Santosh Shekhar Patole, a resident of Latur, challenged an externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Latur, which was confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The externment order was based on a proposal from the Police Inspector, Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, Latur, citing ten criminal cases registered against the petitioner between 2010 and 2018, involving offences such as rape, robbery, and causing grievous hurt. The show cause notice alleged that the petitioner was a hardened criminal and that his presence in the area was harmful to public safety. The petitioner contended that he had been acquitted in most of the cases and that the externment order was passed without considering these acquittals. The court examined the list of cases and found that the petitioner had been acquitted in seven out of ten cases, and in the remaining three cases, he had been discharged or the cases were pending. The court held that the externment authority had not considered the acquittals and that there was no material to show that the petitioner was a habitual offender. The court emphasized that mere registration of multiple FIRs, without evidence of continuous criminal activity, does not justify externment under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The court quashed the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Habitual Offender - Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - The court considered whether an externment order can be sustained when the petitioner has been acquitted in most of the offences and there is no material to show that he is a habitual offender. The court held that the externment authority must consider acquittals and that mere registration of multiple FIRs without evidence of continuous criminal activity does not justify externment. (Paras 5-8) B) Criminal Law - Externment - Subjective Satisfaction - Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - The court examined whether the subjective satisfaction of the authority was based on objective material. The court held that the authority must have material to show that the person is a habitual offender and that the externment is necessary to prevent future offences. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Law - Externment - Acquittals - Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - The court ruled that the externment authority must consider the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in most of the cases. Failure to do so vitiates the externment order. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 against the petitioner is sustainable when the petitioner has been acquitted in most of the offences and there is no material to show that he is a habitual offender.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order dated 27.08.2019 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad and the order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Latur are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on material showing person is a habitual offender
- not merely on registration of multiple FIRs
- acquittals must be considered
- subjective satisfaction of authority must be based on objective material
- Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 requires evidence of continuous criminal activity.
