Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shivaji Baburao Ghadage, challenged an externment order dated 13th July 2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Karad, under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, externing him from the districts of Satara and Sangli for one year. The order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 29th September 2010. The petitioner was alleged to be a bully involved in offences such as causing grievous hurt, criminal intimidation, and rioting, with five criminal cases registered against him at Umbraj Police Station. In-camera statements of eight witnesses were recorded. The petitioner contended that copies of these statements were not supplied to him, violating Section 59 of the Act, and that the notice period of 7 days was insufficient, denying him a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The Court examined the provisions of Section 59, which requires the externing authority to supply copies of statements and give a reasonable opportunity to the person proceeded against. The Court found that the authority had not supplied copies of the in-camera statements, which was a mandatory requirement. Additionally, the notice gave only 7 days to reply, which was held to be insufficient. The Court held that these defects vitiated the externment order and the appellate order. Consequently, the Court quashed both the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(1)(a)(b) and Section 59 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Supply of Copies of In-Camera Statements - The externment order was challenged on the ground that copies of in-camera statements of witnesses were not supplied to the petitioner, violating Section 59 of the Act. The Court held that the failure to supply copies of in-camera statements is a fatal defect and renders the externment order invalid. The Court also noted that the notice period of 7 days was insufficient and the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause. (Paras 6-10) B) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 59 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Notice Period - The notice issued to the petitioner gave only 7 days to show cause, which was held to be insufficient and not in compliance with the requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity under Section 59. The Court emphasized that the notice must provide sufficient time for the person to prepare and submit a reply. (Paras 6-10) C) Criminal Law - Externment - Principles of Natural Justice - The Court held that the externment proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard and the right to receive copies of material relied upon. The failure to supply copies of in-camera statements and the short notice period were held to be violations of natural justice. (Paras 6-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 59 of the Act and violation of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the externment order dated 13th July 2010 and the appellate order dated 29th September 2010. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order must comply with Section 59 of Bombay Police Act
- 1951
- supply of copies of in-camera statements is mandatory
- notice period must be sufficient
- principles of natural justice must be adhered to
