Case Note & Summary
The petitioner was externed from a specified area for two years under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Pune. Earlier, preventive action under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been initiated against him on 4 June 2011, which was dropped on 22 August 2011. In September 2011, externment proceedings were initiated. The externment order was passed on 9 February 2012. The petitioner challenged the order by filing a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The petitioner argued that after dropping the action under Section 110 Cr.P.C., there was no tangible material to justify externment proceedings and that this amounted to non-application of mind. He also contended that he had been acquitted in one of the criminal cases, which the externing authority should have considered. The State countered that dropping the Section 110 proceedings was justified because the petitioner, while under bond, committed another offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 7 July 2011, which called for more stringent preventive action. The High Court held that the dropping of proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. and simultaneous initiation of externment was not non-application of mind; the two actions serve different purposes and the new offence committed by the petitioner justified the shift to externment. The Court further held that the petitioner’s acquittal in March 2012, which came after the externment order passed on 9 February 2012, could not affect the subjective satisfaction recorded earlier. The Court declined to reduce the externment period, stating it does not sit in appeal over the authority’s discretion, but permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the externing authority for reduction if the law allows. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Preventive Action vs. Externment - Sections 110 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and 56 Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Dropping of proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. and initiating externment under the Bombay Police Act does not amount to non-application of mind if the person commits a new offence after the execution of the bond; the dropping is justified as the authority may opt for more stringent action to ensure the person does not indulge in prejudicial activities in future. Held that the subjective satisfaction of the externing authority remained unaffected. (Paras 2) B) Externment - Subjective Satisfaction - Section 56 Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal case after the externment order was passed cannot affect the subjective satisfaction recorded by the externing authority at an anterior point of time; the acquisition came later and thus has no bearing on the validity of the order. Held that the externing authority's satisfaction was not vitiated. (Paras 3) C) Externment - Reduction of Period - Section 56 Bombay Police Act, 1951 - The Court will not sit in appeal over the period of externment fixed by the externing authority; however, the petitioner may make a representation to the externing authority for reduction of the period if permissible under law. Held that the authority may consider such representation on its own merits. (Paras 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether dropping of preventive action under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. and subsequent initiation of externment proceedings under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act constituted non-application of mind; and whether acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal case after passing of the externment order vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the Externing Authority.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that dropping of proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. and initiation of externment did not constitute non-application of mind, as the petitioner committed another offence after the earlier preventive action. The subjective satisfaction of the externing authority was not vitiated by the petitioner's subsequent acquittal, which occurred after the order. The Court declined to interfere with the period of externment but observed that the petitioner may make a representation to the externing authority for its reduction if permissible by law.
Law Points
- Preventive action under Section 110 Cr.P.C. can be dropped to take more stringent externment action under Section 56 Bombay Police Act
- 1951
- commission of a fresh offence after bond justifies dropping of Section 110 and initiating externment
- acquittal in a criminal case after passing of externment order does not affect the earlier subjective satisfaction of the externing authority
- Court will not sit in appeal over the period of externment fixed by the externing authority
