Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Aamna Bi Shiekh Pir Mohd Sheikh, challenged an externment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The notice issued under Section 59(1) of the Act proposed action under clauses (a) and (bb) of Section 56(1), but the final order relied solely on clause (bb). The authority considered the petitioner's activity as prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti-Social and Other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980 (Anti-Social Act). The court examined whether the activity fell within the definition under Section 2(a)(iv) of the Anti-Social Act, which requires commission of 'offences' (plural) punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for seven years or more, and that such offences disturb or are likely to disturb public order. The court noted that the use of the plural 'offences' indicates a requirement of continuous criminal activity, not an isolated incident. In this case, the externment was based on a single FIR for offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which did not constitute 'offences' as required. The court held that the externment order was unsustainable and quashed it. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(bb) - Requirement of Continuous Activity - The externment order under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, read with Section 2(a)(iv) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti-Social and Other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980, requires the externee to have committed 'offences' (plural) punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for seven years or more, indicating a continuous course of conduct, not an isolated act. A single FIR does not satisfy this requirement. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an externment order under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, based on a single FIR for offences under the SC/ST Act, can be sustained when the definition under Section 2(a)(iv) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti-Social and Other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980 requires commission of 'offences' (plural) punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the externment order, and made the rule absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order requires continuous criminal activity
- not isolated offence
- Plural 'offences' in Section 2(a)(iv) of Anti-Social Act mandates more than one offence
- Single FIR cannot justify externment under Section 56(1)(bb) of Maharashtra Police Act
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 114
Criminal Writ Petition No.1221/2018
Mir Nagman Ali (for petitioner), S.S. Doifode (APP for respondents)
Aamna Bi Shiekh Pir Mohd Sheikh
State of Maharashtra, Through Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone3, Nagpur; Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kotwali Division, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging an externment order passed under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the externment order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 59(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, proposing externment under clauses (a) and (bb) of Section 56(1), but the final order was passed only under clause (bb) based on a single FIR for offences under the SC/ST Act, which did not constitute 'offences' as required under Section 2(a)(iv) of the Anti-Social Act.
Issues
Whether the externment order under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, based on a single FIR, satisfies the requirement of 'offences' (plural) under Section 2(a)(iv) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti-Social and Other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the externment order was based on a single FIR, which does not constitute 'offences' as required by the definition under Section 2(a)(iv) of the Anti-Social Act, which mandates continuous criminal activity.
The respondents supported the externment order, but the court found the order unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi
The use of the plural 'offences' in Section 2(a)(iv) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti-Social and Other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980, indicates that the activity must be continuous in nature, involving more than one offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for seven years or more. A single FIR does not satisfy this requirement, and an externment order based solely on such a single FIR is unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The noun is employed as 'offences'. That would mean that there should be atleast more than one offence committed by the proposed externee for which the maximum punishment prescribed is of death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term extending to 7 years or more.
This is obvious from the use of plural form of noun offence.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.1221/2018 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging an externment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur. The court heard the matter on 20.02.2019 and delivered the judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951: 56(1)(bb), 59(1)
- Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti-Social and Other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980: 2(a)(iv)
