Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Krishna Vijay Lalbegi, challenged an externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahmednagar, under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The petitioner had three criminal cases registered against him at Tophkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar. In one case (Crime No.168/2010), the petitioner was already tried and acquitted. The other two cases (Crime No.168/2010 and Crime No.73/2012) were pending, and the petitioner was on bail. The petitioner contended that the externment proceedings were initiated due to personal rivalry with the complainant, whose father-in-law was a Thane Amaldar at the same police station. The dispute pertained to a grocery shop. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice and the externment order did not mention that his activities caused alarm, danger or harm to person or public property, as required under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act. The court, after hearing the parties, found that the externment order was not sustainable. The court held that the authority must record its satisfaction that the activities of the person are such as to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. In this case, the order did not contain such satisfaction. Moreover, the offences were private in nature, arising from a personal dispute, and could not be the basis for externment. The court also noted that the fact of acquittal in one case was not considered. Accordingly, the court quashed the externment order and allowed the petition.
Headnote
A) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 56 - Requirement of Recording Satisfaction - The externment order under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 must record the subjective satisfaction of the authority that the activities of the person are such as to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. In the absence of such satisfaction, the order is vitiated. (Paras 3-4)
B) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Private Dispute - Personal vendetta cannot be the basis for externment proceedings. The offences alleged must have a nexus with public peace and public order. If the disputes are private and personal, externment is not justified. (Paras 3-4)
C) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Consideration of Acquittal - The authority must consider the fact of acquittal in one of the cases while passing the externment order. Failure to do so vitiates the proceedings. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is sustainable when the show cause notice and order do not record satisfaction that the petitioner's activities caused alarm, danger or harm to person or public property, and when the offences alleged are private in nature.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and quashed the externment order. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56 of Bombay Police Act requires subjective satisfaction that activities cause alarm
- danger or harm to person or property
- mere registration of criminal cases not sufficient
- personal vendetta cannot be basis for externment
- acquittal in one case must be considered
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (09) 1
Criminal Writ Petition No. 539 of 2014
S.S. Shinde, V.L. Achliya
Mr. S.L. Bhapkar (for Petitioner), Mr. S.A. Ambad (APP for Respondents)
Krishna s/o. Vijay Lalbegi
The State of Maharashtra, The District Magistrate, Ahmednagar, The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagar Division, Ahmednagar, The Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging an externment order passed under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the externment order and setting aside the proceedings.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was externed from the area despite being acquitted in one case and the offences being private in nature; the order did not record satisfaction that his activities caused alarm or danger to public.
Previous Decisions
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the externment order; the petitioner filed a reply but the authorities did not consider the acquittal.
Issues
Whether the externment order under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act is valid without recording satisfaction that the petitioner's activities caused alarm, danger or harm to person or property.
Whether private disputes can be the basis for externment proceedings.
Whether the fact of acquittal in one case was required to be considered.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he was acquitted in one case, but the authorities did not consider this fact.
Petitioner argued that the show cause notice and externment order did not mention that his activities caused alarm, danger or harm to person or public property.
Petitioner argued that the offences were due to personal rivalry with the complainant, whose father-in-law was a Thane Amaldar, and the dispute was over a grocery shop.
Petitioner argued that the offences were private and personal, not affecting public peace or property.
Ratio Decidendi
For an externment order under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, the authority must record its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the person cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. Mere registration of criminal cases, especially those arising from private disputes, is insufficient. The order must be based on a nexus with public order and safety.
Judgment Excerpts
the mandate of Section 56 (1) (a) (b) of the Bombay Police Act has not been followed by the respondent authorities inasmuch as it is not mentioned in the show cause notice as well as externment order that, the activities of the petitioner are such that it has created alarm, danger or harm to person or public property.
the offences registered against the petitioner are on account of personal rivalry and nothing to do with the public peace and public property.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) challenging the externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahmednagar. The petition was heard and reserved on August 28, 2014, and judgment was pronounced on September 9, 2014.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: Section 56, Section 56(1)(a), Section 56(1)(b)
