Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Naresh Hiralal Rathod, challenged an externment order passed under Section 56(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The order was based on two criminal cases registered against the petitioner: one under Sections 387, 364(A), 326, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for an incident in 2000-2001, and another under Sections 387, 506(2), and 34 of the IPC for an incident in 2003. Additionally, the authorities relied on in-camera statements of three witnesses. The show cause notice alleged that the petitioner's objectionable activities were ongoing in Sun Mill Lane, Sitaram Jadhav Marg, Lower Parel, and adjoining areas. The petitioner contended that the material did not establish that he was a dangerous and desperate person whose movements were causing alarm or harm to the public. The court examined the show cause notice and found that the allegations merely stated that the petitioner's activities were objectionable but did not specify how they caused harm or danger to the public. The court noted that the two criminal cases were not sufficient to conclude that the petitioner was a dangerous person under the Act. The in-camera statements also did not indicate any public harm. Consequently, the court held that the externment order was not sustainable and quashed it. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 56(a)(b) - Validity of Externment Order - The externment order was challenged on the ground that the material relied upon, i.e., two criminal cases and in-camera statements of three witnesses, did not establish that the petitioner was a dangerous and desperate person whose movements were causing alarm or harm to the public. The court held that the externment order was not sustainable as the allegations in the show cause notice did not indicate that the petitioner's activities were causing harm or danger to the public at large. The court quashed the order. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, based on two criminal cases and in-camera statements of three witnesses, is sustainable in law
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and quashed the externment order passed under Section 56(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951
Law Points
- Externment order under Bombay Police Act must be based on credible material showing the person is a dangerous and desperate character
- not merely on registration of criminal cases and in-camera statements without corroboration of public harm
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (05) 136
Criminal Writ Petition No.1483 of 2004
Shri Gajendra Jadhav for the Petitioner, Shri K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for the Respondents
The Deputy Commissioner of Police and another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging an externment order under the Bombay Police Act
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the externment order passed under Section 56(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951
Filing Reason
The petitioner was externed based on two criminal cases and in-camera statements of three witnesses, which he contended did not establish him as a dangerous person
Previous Decisions
The externment order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police; the petitioner challenged it before the High Court
Issues
Whether the externment order under Section 56(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, based on two criminal cases and in-camera statements, is sustainable
Whether the material on record establishes that the petitioner is a dangerous and desperate person whose movements cause harm or danger to the public
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the allegations in the show cause notice did not indicate that his activities were causing harm or danger to the public
The respondents supported the externment order based on the criminal cases and in-camera statements
Ratio Decidendi
An externment order under Section 56(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, must be based on material showing that the person is a dangerous and desperate character whose movements are causing alarm or harm to the public. Mere registration of criminal cases and in-camera statements without evidence of public harm are insufficient to sustain such an order.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is to the order of externment passed against the Petitioner under section 56(a) (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
The allegation made in the show cause notice issued under section 59 of the said Act of 1951 is based on two offences registered against the Petitioner and in-camera statements of three witnesses.
In clause 1 of the show cause notice it is alleged that the objectionable activities of the Petitioner are going on in the area of Sun Mill Lane, Sitaram Jadhav Marg, Lower Parel within the jurisdiction of N.M.Marg Police Station, Mumbai and in the adjoining areas.
The first case registered against the Petitioner is under sections 387, 364(A), 326, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The second case is under sections 387, 506(2) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Procedural History
The Deputy Commissioner of Police passed an externment order under Section 56(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, against the petitioner. The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.1483 of 2004 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order. The High Court heard the petition and delivered judgment on 20th June 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 56(a)(b), 59
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
- Indian Penal Code: 387, 364(A), 326, 34, 506(2)
- Constitution of India: 227
