Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Imtiyaz Afzal Hussain Shaikh, challenged an externment order dated 22 April 2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police under Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, extern him from Pune City and Pune District for two years. The order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 15 July 2013. The petitioner argued that the Deputy Commissioner failed to record subjective satisfaction that witnesses were unwilling to depose against him, relying on Yashwant Damodar Patil v. Hemant Karkare. He also contended that the alleged prejudicial activities were confined to Wanavadi Police Station area, making externment from the entire district excessive, citing Amjad Afjal Hussein Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra. Additionally, the show cause notice and externment order did not disclose the dates of in-camera statements of two witnesses, relying on Sunil Mani Shetty v. Deputy Commissioner of Police. The court found merit in these submissions. It held that the Deputy Commissioner's order lacked subjective satisfaction regarding unwillingness of witnesses, the territorial extent was excessive, and the dates of in-camera statements were not disclosed. Consequently, the court quashed the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) - Subjective Satisfaction - The externment order under Section 56(1)(b) requires the authority to record subjective satisfaction that witnesses are not willing to depose against the person due to fear. In the absence of such satisfaction, the order is invalid. (Paras 2-4)
B) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) - Territorial Extent - The externment order must be proportionate to the area of prejudicial activities. If the activities are confined to a specific police station area, externment from the entire district is excessive. (Paras 2, 4)
C) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 59 - Show Cause Notice - The show cause notice and externment order must disclose the date on which in-camera statements of witnesses were recorded. Failure to do so vitiates the proceedings. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order under Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is valid when the authority fails to record subjective satisfaction regarding unwillingness of witnesses and when the territorial extent of externment is excessive.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashing the externment order dated 22 April 2013 and the appellate order dated 15 July 2013.
Law Points
- Subjective satisfaction must be recorded that witnesses are unwilling to depose
- Externment order must be proportionate to area of prejudicial activities
- Date of recording in-camera statements must be disclosed
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (12) 95
Criminal Writ Petition No.3544 of 2013
Mr. S.G. Deshmukh i/by Mr. G.T. Kanchanpurkar for Petitioner; Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent-State
Imtiyaz Afzal Hussain Shaikh
The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Wanavadi Division, Pune; The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, Pune City; The Ld. Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai; The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging externment order under Bombay Police Act
Remedy Sought
Quashing of externment order dated 22 April 2013 and appellate order dated 15 July 2013
Filing Reason
Petitioner was externed from Pune City and Pune District for two years under Section 56(1)(b) of Bombay Police Act
Previous Decisions
Deputy Commissioner of Police passed externment order on 22 April 2013; Appellate Authority confirmed it on 15 July 2013
Issues
Whether the Deputy Commissioner recorded subjective satisfaction that witnesses are unwilling to depose against the petitioner?
Whether the externment order covering entire Pune District is excessive when alleged activities are confined to Wanavadi Police Station area?
Whether the failure to disclose dates of in-camera statements in show cause notice and externment order vitiates the proceedings?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that no subjective satisfaction was recorded regarding unwillingness of witnesses, relying on Yashwant Damodar Patil.
Petitioner argued that externment from entire district is excessive as activities confined to Wanavadi, relying on Amjad Afjal Hussein Shaikh.
Petitioner argued that dates of in-camera statements were not disclosed, relying on Sunil Mani Shetty.
Ratio Decidendi
For an externment order under Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, the authority must record subjective satisfaction that witnesses are unwilling to depose; the territorial extent must be proportionate to the area of prejudicial activities; and the dates of in-camera statements must be disclosed in the show cause notice and order.
Judgment Excerpts
The first submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that there is no subjective satisfaction recorded by the Deputy Commissioner that due to prejudicial activities of the Petitioner, witnesses are not willing to depose against the Petitioner.
Secondly, he submitted that the alleged prejudicial activities of the Petitioner are confined to the area falling within the jurisdiction of Wanavadi Police Station and, therefore, the order of externment which extends to the entire Pune District is certainly excessive.
He urged that the date on which the incamera statements have been recorded has not been disclosed both in the show cause notice and in the impugned order of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
Procedural History
The Deputy Commissioner of Police passed an externment order on 22 April 2013 under Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act. The petitioner appealed, and the Appellate Authority confirmed the order on 15 July 2013. The petitioner then filed Criminal Writ Petition No.3544 of 2013 before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and disposed of on 4 December 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: Section 56(1)(b), Section 59
