Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, wife of Naresh Singh Thakur, challenged an externment order dated 18th June 2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Respondent No. 2) under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and its confirmation by the appellate authority (Respondent No. 1) on 28th August 2013. The externment order directed Naresh Singh to be externed from Greater Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Thane and Raigad districts for two years. The show cause notice mentioned five criminal cases against Naresh Singh. Three cases (C.R. No. 187/1996, C.R. No. 65/2000, C.R. No. 41/2009) were of considerable vintage and not proximate to the externment order. The fourth case (C.R. No. 279/2012) under Sections 387, 506(II) and 323 IPC was registered at Antop Hill Police Station, but the High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 253/2013 had granted ad-interim relief directing that investigation may continue but no chargesheet be filed. This order was placed before the authorities but was not considered. The fifth case (C.R. No. 360/2006) under various sections including MCOC Act was added in the externment order though not in the show cause notice. In appeal, the appellate authority overlooked that Naresh Singh had been acquitted in that case on 18th July 2013 by the Special MCOC Court at Thane. The High Court found that the only proximate case was the 2012 FIR, in which interim relief had been granted. There was no material justifying externment from such a vast geographical area. The court held that the externment order was unsustainable due to reliance on stale cases and non-consideration of relevant material including the court order and acquittal. The petition was allowed, the externment order and appellate order were quashed and set aside.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(1)(a)(b) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Proximity of Cases - The externment order was based on five criminal cases, three of which were of vintage (1996, 2000, 2009) and not proximate in time to the order. The only proximate case (2012) had an interim order from the High Court restraining filing of chargesheet, which was not considered by the authorities. Held that externment cannot be justified on stale and irrelevant material (Paras 3-5). B) Criminal Law - Externment - Non-Consideration of Relevant Material - Section 56(1)(a)(b) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - The authorities failed to consider a Division Bench order dated 30th January 2013 granting ad-interim relief in respect of the 2012 FIR, and an acquittal order dated 18th July 2013 in a 2006 case under MCOC Act. Held that failure to consider such material vitiates the externment order (Paras 3-5). C) Criminal Law - Externment - Geographical Extent - Section 56(1)(a)(b) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - The externment order covered Greater Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Thane and Raigad districts for two years. Given the lack of material justifying such a vast area, the order was held disproportionate and unsustainable (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an externment order under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 can be sustained when based on stale cases and without considering a court order granting interim relief and an acquittal in a related case
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The externment order dated 18th June 2013 passed by Respondent No. 2 and the appellate order dated 28th August 2013 passed by Respondent No. 1 are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on proximate and relevant material
- non-consideration of court orders and acquittal renders order unsustainable
