Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Karan Ramesh Ghuge, challenged an externment order dated 24th December 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nashik, under Section 57(1)(a)(i) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, externing him from Nashik City and Nashik Rural for two years. The order was confirmed by the appellate authority on 22nd March 2013. The petitioner contended that the order was based on extraneous material and that the in-camera statements of witnesses were vague as the dates of recording were not disclosed, prejudicing his defence. The State argued that reasonable opportunity was afforded and the show cause notice contained sufficient details. The court examined the impugned order and found that the foundation was two crimes (Crime Nos.31/2011 and 333/2011) and allegations by two witnesses (a) and (b). The court noted that the dates of the in-camera statements were not disclosed, which prevented the petitioner from effectively cross-examining or rebutting the allegations. The court held that this non-disclosure caused prejudice and rendered the externment order unsustainable. The court quashed the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 57(1)(a)(i) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Vague Allegations - The externment order was based on two crimes and in-camera statements of two witnesses. The dates on which the in-camera statements were recorded were not disclosed, causing prejudice to the petitioner's defence. Held that non-disclosure of dates of in-camera statements renders the externment order unsustainable (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 57(1)(a)(i) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is vitiated by non-disclosure of dates of in-camera statements and reliance on extraneous material.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24th December 2012 and the appellate order dated 22nd March 2013 are quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on specific and not vague allegations
- Non-disclosure of dates of in-camera statements causes prejudice
- Section 57(1)(a)(i) Bombay Police Act
- 1951 requires reasonable opportunity of hearing
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (07) 107
Criminal Writ Petition No.1305 of 2013
S.C. Dharmadhikari, S.B. Shukre
Mr. U.N. Tripathi for the appellant, Mr. K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the respondent
Dy. Commissioner of Police, Principal Secretary (Spl) Home Department, State of Maharashtra
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, 1951.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the externment order dated 24th December 2012 and the appellate order dated 22nd March 2013.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was externed from Nashik City and Nashik Rural for two years based on vague allegations and non-disclosure of dates of in-camera statements.
Previous Decisions
The Deputy Commissioner of Police passed the externment order on 24th December 2012, which was confirmed by the appellate authority on 22nd March 2013.
Issues
Whether the externment order is based on extraneous material?
Whether non-disclosure of dates of in-camera statements causes prejudice to the petitioner?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The impugned order is based on extraneous material and in-camera statements are vague as dates of recording were not disclosed, causing prejudice.
Respondent: Reasonable opportunity was afforded and the show cause notice disclosed sufficient details; the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to peace and harmony.
Ratio Decidendi
Non-disclosure of dates of in-camera statements in an externment proceeding under Section 57(1)(a)(i) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 causes prejudice to the petitioner's defence and renders the externment order unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
It is seen from the impugned order that the foundation has been two crimes registered against the petitioner namely, Crime Nos.31/2011 and 333/2011 and some allegations made against him by two witnesses (a) & (b) that he has committed certain acts of violence against them.
The dates on which these in-camera statements were recorded have not been disclosed. This has caused prejudice to the defence of the petitioner.
Procedural History
The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nashik, passed an externment order under Section 57(1)(a)(i) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 on 24th December 2012, externing the petitioner from Nashik City and Nashik Rural for two years. The petitioner appealed, and the appellate authority confirmed the order on 22nd March 2013. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition in the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: Section 57(1)(a)(i)
