Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kishore Chandrakant Mhatre, challenged an externment order dated 29.08.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Panvel, under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and the appellate order dated 03.06.2010 confirming it. The externment order directed the petitioner to be externed from Raigad, Thane, and Mumbai districts for two years. The proposal for externment was initiated by the Senior Police Inspector of Taloja police station on 08.06.2009, alleging that the petitioner was involved in activities involving force, violence, and offences under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, causing harm and alarm to the public. A show cause notice was issued on 19.06.2009, listing two criminal cases: C.R. No. 25/2008 under Sections 387, 452, 34 IPC (pending in court) and C.R. No. 12/2009 under Sections 307, 387, 143, 323, 506(2), 452, 341 IPC read with Sections 3, 25 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 37(1)135 of the Mumbai Police Act. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice, but the externing authority passed the externment order. The appellate authority confirmed the order. The petitioner argued that the externment order was invalid because the authority did not record satisfaction that witnesses were unwilling to come forward to depose against him and that less drastic remedies were inadequate. The court examined the provisions of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, which requires the authority to be satisfied that the movements or acts of a person are causing or are likely to cause harm, danger, or alarm, and that witnesses are unwilling to come forward due to fear. The court found that the impugned order did not contain any such satisfaction regarding witness unwillingness or the inadequacy of less drastic measures. The court held that externment is a preventive measure, not punitive, and cannot be used to punish for past offences. The court quashed the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(a)(b) - Validity of Externment Order - The petitioner challenged an externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, alleging that the authority did not record satisfaction that witnesses were unwilling to come forward and that less drastic remedies were inadequate. The court held that the externment order was invalid as the authority failed to consider less drastic measures and did not record the requisite satisfaction regarding witness unwillingness. (Paras 1-10) B) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 56 - Requirement of Recording Satisfaction - The court held that before passing an externment order, the authority must record a subjective satisfaction that witnesses are unwilling to come forward to depose against the person due to fear, and that less drastic remedies are insufficient. Failure to do so renders the order invalid. (Paras 8-10) C) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 56 - Punitive vs. Preventive - The court observed that externment is a preventive measure, not a punitive one. It cannot be used to punish a person for past offences. The authority must focus on future conduct and the need to prevent harm. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 was valid when the externing authority did not record satisfaction that witnesses were unwilling to come forward and less drastic remedies were inadequate.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Externment order dated 29.08.2009 and appellate order dated 03.06.2010 are quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on subjective satisfaction that witnesses are unwilling to come forward
- less drastic remedies must be considered
- externment cannot be used as a punitive measure for past offences
