Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Amar Gopal Malvankar, challenged an externment order dated 26.4.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone X, Mumbai, under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and the appellate order dated 28.3.2013 affirming it. The petitioner was arrested on 3.1.2012 in connection with C.R. No.1 of 2012 of Jogeshwari Police Station. While in judicial custody, a notice of externment was issued on 13.2.2012, and the externment order was passed on 26.4.2012. The petitioner's bail application was allowed on 24.7.2012. The main contention was that the authority failed to consider the fact that the petitioner was in custody at the time of the notice and order, and did not reflect subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of preventive action. The court, relying on the judgment in Rajkishore Shivshankar Tiwari v. Makrand Ranade & Ors., held that the order must reveal application of mind and sufficient apprehension that the petitioner would again engage in prejudicial activities. The court quashed both the externment order and the appellate order.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Externment - Section 56(1)(a)(b) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Subjective Satisfaction - The externment order must reflect the authority's subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of preventive action, especially when the externee is in judicial custody. The order must consider the fact of custody and the future possibility of the externee committing offences. Failure to do so renders the order invalid. (Paras 2-4) B) Criminal Procedure - Externment - Notice During Custody - Section 56(1)(a)(b) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Application of Mind - Issuance of notice and passing of externment order while the petitioner is in judicial custody requires the authority to specifically mention the custody and assess the likelihood of future prejudicial activity. The order must demonstrate application of mind on this aspect. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is valid when the petitioner was in judicial custody at the time of notice and order, and the authority failed to consider the fact of custody and future possibility of committing offences.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The externment order dated 26.4.2012 passed by Respondent No.1 and the order dated 28.3.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority are quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Externment order must reflect subjective satisfaction of authority
- consideration of custody status
- application of mind to future apprehension
