Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns four criminal writ petitions filed by Satish Limbaji Ghobale, Shubham @ Dada Dayayand Ghobale, Govind @ Jaypal Limbaji Ghobale, and Raosaheb Dnyanoba Nagargoje against the State of Maharashtra and other respondents. The petitioners challenged externment orders passed against them under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gangakhed. The orders directed them to remove themselves from the limits of Parbhani district for a period of two years. The petitioners contended that the orders were passed without proper application of mind, without recording satisfaction that witnesses were unwilling to depose against them, and based on vague allegations without specific instances. The court examined the show cause notices and the impugned orders and found that the externing authority had not recorded any satisfaction that witnesses were unwilling to come forward to depose against the petitioners due to fear of violence. The court held that such satisfaction is a mandatory prerequisite under Section 56(1)(b) and its absence renders the order invalid. Additionally, the court noted that the orders were based on vague allegations without specific instances of dangerous or harmful activities. Consequently, the court allowed all four petitions and quashed the externment orders.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Validity of Externment Order - The court considered whether externment orders passed against four individuals were valid when the externing authority failed to record satisfaction that witnesses were unwilling to come forward to depose against them due to fear of violence. The court held that such satisfaction is a mandatory prerequisite and its absence renders the order invalid. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Requirement of Specific Instances - The court held that externment orders must be based on specific instances of dangerous or harmful activities, not on vague allegations. The show cause notices and orders in these cases lacked specific instances, making them unsustainable. (Paras 1-10) C) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Quashing of Orders - The court quashed the externment orders against all four petitioners, holding that the orders were passed without proper application of mind and without complying with the mandatory requirements of the Act. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment orders passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 against the petitioners are sustainable in law when the externing authority did not record satisfaction that witnesses are unwilling to depose against the petitioners due to fear of violence.
Final Decision
The court allowed all four criminal writ petitions and quashed the externment orders passed against the petitioners.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on specific instances of dangerous or harmful activities
- not vague allegations
- Section 56(1)(b) of Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 requires satisfaction that witnesses are unwilling to come forward
- failure to record such satisfaction renders order invalid
