Bombay High Court Quashes Externment Order Under Section 56 of Bombay Police Act for Lack of Subjective Satisfaction. Externment Order Set Aside as Authority Failed to Consider Less Drastic Remedies and Appellate Order Lacked Independent Application of Mind.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 89
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Rameshkumar @ Ramu Singh Thakur, challenged an externment order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Warora on 15th September 2012, externing him from six districts (Chandrapur, Yavatmal, Wardha, Nagpur, Bhandara, and Gadchiroli) for two years under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act. He also challenged the appellate order dated 28th January 2013 passed by the Secretary (Special), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, dismissing his appeal. The petitioner argued that the externment order relied on eight proceedings but failed to show subjective satisfaction of the authority based on material, and that less drastic remedies were not considered. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the impugned order merely recited the number of cases without demonstrating application of mind to the necessity of externment. The court held that the authority must consider whether other measures are sufficient to prevent the alleged harmful activities. The appellate order also did not show independent application of mind. Consequently, the court quashed both the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the petition.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56 Bombay Police Act - Procedural Compliance - The externment order must be based on subjective satisfaction of the authority derived from material on record, not merely on the number of cases registered against the person. The order must consider whether less drastic remedies are sufficient. (Paras 5-6)

B) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56 Bombay Police Act - Appellate Order - The appellate authority must independently apply its mind to the facts and law, and not merely endorse the externment order without proper consideration. (Para 6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the externment order passed under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act and the appellate order confirming it are sustainable in law.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court quashed the externment order dated 15/09/2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Warora and the appellate order dated 28/01/2013 passed by the Secretary (Special), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra. Rule made absolute.

Law Points

  • Externment order under Section 56 of Bombay Police Act requires subjective satisfaction based on material
  • not mere recital of cases
  • failure to consider less drastic remedies vitiates order
  • appellate authority must apply mind independently.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (08) 163

Criminal Application (APL) No.133/2013

2013-08-26

B. R. Gavai, Z.A. Haq

Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar for petitioner, Mr. R.S. Nayak, A.P.P. for respondents

Rameshkumar @ Ramu Singh s/o Shriram Singh Thakur

The State of Maharashtra, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Warora

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal writ petition challenging externment order under Section 56 of Bombay Police Act.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of externment order dated 15/09/2012 and appellate order dated 28/01/2013.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was externed from six districts for two years without proper application of mind by the authority.

Previous Decisions

Sub Divisional Magistrate passed externment order on 15/09/2012; appeal dismissed by Secretary (Special), Home Department on 28/01/2013.

Issues

Whether the externment order under Section 56 of Bombay Police Act was passed without subjective satisfaction based on material. Whether the appellate authority independently applied its mind to the appeal.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the externment order relied on eight proceedings but did not show subjective satisfaction or consideration of less drastic remedies. Respondents argued in support of the orders.

Ratio Decidendi

An externment order under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act must be based on subjective satisfaction of the authority derived from material on record, and the authority must consider whether less drastic remedies are sufficient. The appellate authority must independently apply its mind.

Judgment Excerpts

The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate shows that the reliance is placed on eight proceedings, out of which... The order does not show any application of mind by the authority regarding the necessity of passing the externment order.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Criminal Application (APL) No.133/2013 under Section 482 CrPC read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. At hearing, leave was granted to convert it into a Criminal Writ Petition. Rule was issued and made returnable forthwith. The court heard arguments and delivered judgment on 26/08/2013.

Acts & Sections

  • Bombay Police Act: 56
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 482
  • Constitution of India: 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Accused in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Eye-Witness Testimony. Conviction by High Court Under Section 302 Read with Section 149 IPC Reversed as Acquittal by Trial Court Was Reasonable and High Court Failed to Respect P...
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal in Food Adulteration Case Where Food Was Substandard but Not Unsafe. Substandard food attracts only penalty under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, not conviction under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954...