Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sangram s/o Janardhan Tupe, a practicing advocate in Beed, challenged a notice dated 26-7-2010 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beed, under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The notice proposed to extern him from the districts of Beed, Osmanabad, Jalna, Ahmednagar, and Aurangabad for two years. The petitioner contended that he had been residing in Beed for 25 years, was a reputed advocate practicing in the District Court for 9 years, and was involved in social and political activities. He alleged that respondent No.4, a Deputy Collector and relative of the Superintendent of Police, had lodged a false complaint under Sections 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and that the police were pressuring him. The petitioner argued that the notice was based on vague allegations without specific instances, and that the Sub Divisional Magistrate had not applied his mind independently. The court examined the notice and found that it merely reproduced police reports without disclosing any material on which the magistrate had formed his subjective satisfaction. The court held that the notice was issued without proper application of mind and was based on vague allegations, and therefore quashed the notice. The court emphasized that the power under Section 56(b) must be exercised cautiously, especially when it affects the right to livelihood and reputation of a professional.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(b) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Notice for externment - Validity - The notice issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 must be based on subjective satisfaction derived from material on record, not merely on police reports. The notice must disclose specific instances of movements and acts causing harm to public order. Vague allegations without particulars render the notice unsustainable. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Livelihood - Article 21 of Constitution of India - Externment of Advocate - The petitioner, a practicing advocate, faces externment which would affect his right to practice profession and livelihood. The authority must consider the impact on fundamental rights before issuing externment notice. (Paras 2-5) C) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(b) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Application of Mind - The Sub Divisional Magistrate must apply his mind independently to the material and not act as a rubber stamp on police recommendations. Failure to do so vitiates the proceedings. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice issued under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 for externment of the petitioner is sustainable in law when based on vague allegations and without proper application of mind by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
Final Decision
The court quashed the notice dated 26-7-2010 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beed, under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, holding that it was issued without proper application of mind and based on vague allegations.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56(b) of Bombay Police Act
- 1951 requires subjective satisfaction of the authority based on material
- not mere police reports
- notice must disclose specific instances of alleged movements and acts causing harm
- vague allegations without particulars vitiate the proceedings
- right to livelihood and reputation are fundamental rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
