Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sohan s/o Vijay Lalbegi, filed a Criminal Writ Petition challenging an externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahmednagar under Section 56(1)(a)(b) 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 vitiated because 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). He also argued that the authorities failed to consider his acquittal in one case. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that the proceedings were initiated due to personal rivalry with the complainant's father-in-law, who was a Thane Amaldar at the police station, and that the offences were private in nature arising from a dispute over a grocery shop. The court, after hearing the parties, found that the externment order was not sustainable. The court held that the mandatory requirements of Section 56(1)(a)(b) were not complied with, as the order did not record that the petitioner's activities caused alarm, danger or harm. The court also noted that the acquittal in one case was not considered. Consequently, the court quashed the externment order and allowed the petition.
Headnote
A) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(a)(b) - Mandatory Requirements - The show cause notice and externment order must explicitly state that the activities of the person are such that they have created alarm, danger or harm to person or public property. Failure to do so vitiates the proceedings. (Paras 3-5) B) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Consideration of Acquittal - The externment authority must consider the fact that the person has been acquitted in one of the cases relied upon. Non-consideration of acquittal renders the externment order unsustainable. (Para 3) C) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Personal Rivalry - Externment proceedings cannot be initiated on the basis of personal vendetta or private disputes. The offences must have a nexus with public peace and public property. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is sustainable when the show cause notice and order do not mention that the petitioner's activities caused alarm, danger or harm to person or property, and when one of the three cases resulted in acquittal.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and quashed the externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahmednagar.
Law Points
- Externment order must record that activities caused alarm/danger/harm to person or property
- Acquittal in one case must be considered
- Personal vendetta cannot be basis for externment
