Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bilal Gulam Rasul Patel, challenged an externment order dated 15th April, 2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thane, externing him from the limits of Thane, Pune, Nashik, Mumbai City, and Mumbai Suburban Districts for a period of one year under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The petitioner had previously been externed in 2010, but that order was quashed by the High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 853/2010 on the ground that the show-cause notice and externment order lacked material to show that witnesses were not coming forward due to fear. In the present case, the petitioner learned under the Right to Information Act that the police had sent a proposal for externment based on a report dated 31st December, 2011, which relied on in-camera statements. The petitioner argued that the in-camera statements were not recorded as required by law and that the show-cause notice did not contain the necessary material. The court entertained the petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy by way of appeal, due to the peculiar facts that the order was served on the petitioner only on 27th September, 2013, and the petition was filed promptly thereafter. The court examined the record and found that the in-camera statements were not recorded as required under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The court noted that the earlier externment order was quashed on similar grounds, and the present order suffered from the same defect. The court held that the failure to record in-camera statements is a fatal flaw that renders the externment order unsustainable. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the impugned externment order dated 15th April, 2013.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Validity of Externment Order - The petitioner challenged an externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate externing him from several districts for one year. The court found that the in-camera statements relied upon were not recorded as required under Section 56, and the show-cause notice did not contain material showing that witnesses were not coming forward due to fear. Held that the externment order was unsustainable and quashed it. (Paras 3-8) B) Criminal Law - Externment - Recording of In-Camera Statements - Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Mandatory Requirement - The court held that the recording of in-camera statements is a mandatory requirement under Section 56. The failure to record such statements vitiates the externment order. The court noted that the earlier externment order was quashed on similar grounds. (Paras 4-8) C) Criminal Law - Externment - Show-Cause Notice - Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Requirement of Material - The court observed that the show-cause notice must contain material to show that witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence in public due to fear. In the absence of such material, the externment order cannot be sustained. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order dated 15th April, 2013 passed under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is valid when the in-camera statements were not recorded as required by law.
Final Decision
The court quashed and set aside the impugned externment order dated 15th April, 2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thane.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on proper recording of in-camera statements
- Failure to record in-camera statements as per Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 renders order invalid
- Show-cause notice must contain material showing witnesses not coming forward due to fear
- Non-compliance with mandatory provisions vitiates externment order
