Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sheikh Jafar, challenged an externment order dated 29/4/2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati, under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and the appellate order dated 4/8/2015 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati. The externment order was based on a notice dated 4/9/2013 which mentioned seven criminal cases registered against the petitioner at Nagpuri Gate, Kotwali, and Pandharkawda police stations, and also referred to preventive action under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The petitioner argued that the externment order was passed without proper application of mind and that the material on record did not establish that he was a habitual offender or that witnesses were unwilling to come forward. The respondents contended that the order was justified to prevent the petitioner from committing further offences. The court examined the notice and the externment order and found that they merely listed the criminal cases without any material to show that the petitioner was a habitual offender or that witnesses were intimidated. The court also noted that the appellate order did not independently consider the grounds but merely endorsed the externment order. Consequently, the court quashed both the externment order and the appellate order, holding that the authorities had failed to apply their mind and that the requirements of Section 56(1)(a) and (b) were not satisfied. The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(a) and (b) - Habitual Offender - The externment order was quashed as the notice and order did not contain any material to show that the petitioner was a habitual offender or that witnesses were unwilling to depose against him. The court held that mere registration of criminal cases without evidence of habitual offending or witness intimidation is insufficient to justify externment. (Paras 2-6) B) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Appellate Order - Non-Application of Mind - The appellate order dated 4/8/2015 passed by the Divisional Commissioner was set aside as it merely endorsed the externment order without independent application of mind. The court held that the appellate authority must consider the grounds and material afresh. (Paras 2-6) C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 110 - Preventive Action - The notice under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 referred to preventive action under Section 110 of CrPC, but the court found that the material did not establish that the petitioner was a habitual offender or that witnesses were afraid to testify. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order dated 29/4/2014 passed under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and the appellate order dated 4/8/2015 are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the externment order dated 29/4/2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati, and the appellate order dated 4/8/2015 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 requires subjective satisfaction based on material showing that the person is a habitual offender and that witnesses are unwilling to come forward
- mere registration of criminal cases without evidence of habitual offending or witness intimidation is insufficient
- appellate authority must independently apply mind and not merely endorse the externment order.
