Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dinesh Santlal Yadav, challenged an externment order dated 22/11/2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-3, Kalyan, under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, externing him from Thane District for one year, and the appellate order dated 22/1/2020 of the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, confirming the externment. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 30/9/2019 which mentioned four FIRs registered at Manpada Police Station and one Chapter proceeding under Section 110 Cr.P.C. The notice also referred to two in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' alleging incidents of assault and robbery on 12/9/2019 and 23/5/2019 respectively. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was vague as it did not provide full particulars of the incidents, and the in-camera statements were not supplied to him, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents argued that the externment was necessary to prevent the petitioner from continuing his criminal activities. The court held that the show cause notice must contain full particulars of the alleged incidents to enable an effective reply, and the failure to supply the in-camera statements vitiated the proceedings. The court found that the externment order was not based on proper material and quashed both the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 59 - Show Cause Notice - The show cause notice must contain full particulars of the incidents alleged, including dates, places, and nature of acts, to enable the noticee to effectively reply. Failure to provide such particulars violates principles of natural justice and renders the externment order unsustainable. (Paras 2-6) B) Criminal Law - Externment - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 59 - In-camera Statements - The in-camera statements of witnesses must be supplied to the noticee to enable an effective defense. Non-supply of such statements, even if claimed to be confidential, vitiates the externment proceedings. (Paras 3-6) C) Criminal Law - Externment - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 59 - Subjective Satisfaction - The externment order must be based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority, which must be supported by material on record. Mere registration of FIRs and Chapter proceedings, without linking them to the need for externment, is insufficient. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act and the appellate order confirming it are sustainable in law, given the alleged vagueness of the show cause notice and lack of proper material.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashing the externment order dated 22/11/2019 and the appellate order dated 22/1/2020. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on subjective satisfaction of the authority
- supported by material on record
- show cause notice must contain full particulars of incidents to enable effective reply
- failure to provide details of in-camera statements violates principles of natural justice
- externment cannot be sustained if based on vague allegations.
