Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mahesh Bajrang Dalvi, challenged an externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ichalkaranji, on 17th August 2015, under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act. The order directed him to remove himself from Kolhapur district for two years. The externment proceedings were initiated based on a notice dated 25th December 2014 issued under Section 59 of the Act, which referred to seven cases pending against the petitioner. The notice also mentioned preventive actions under Sections 107 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner filed a reply on 3rd August 2015, stating that he had been acquitted in Sessions Case No.3 of 2006 and Regular Criminal Case No.73 of 2006, and that the other cases were pending trial. Despite this, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the externment order, relying on the cases registered against the petitioner. The Bombay High Court, in its judgment dated 20th August 2016, quashed the externment order. The court held that the authority had not properly applied its mind to the material on record. The court noted that the petitioner had been acquitted in two cases, and the remaining cases were still pending. There was no material to show that the petitioner's movements were causing harm, alarm, or danger to the public. The court emphasized that an externment order under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) must be based on subjective satisfaction derived from objective material, and the authority cannot mechanically pass such orders. The court allowed the petition and set aside the externment order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of Maharashtra Police Act - Validity of Order - The petitioner challenged an externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ichalkaranji, directing him to remove himself from Kolhapur district for two years. The court held that the order was unsustainable as the authority failed to consider that the petitioner was acquitted in two cases and the other cases were pending, and there was no material to show that his movements caused harm, alarm, or danger to the public. The order was quashed and set aside. (Paras 3-8) B) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of Maharashtra Police Act - Subjective Satisfaction - The court observed that the externment order must be based on subjective satisfaction derived from objective material. In this case, the authority merely relied on the notice and the report without independently assessing the gravity of the allegations, and the order was passed mechanically. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act was sustainable in law given that the petitioner had been acquitted in some cases and the remaining cases were pending, and whether the authority had properly applied its mind to the material on record.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court allowed the petition and quashed the externment order dated 17th August 2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ichalkaranji. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of Maharashtra Police Act must be based on credible material showing harm
- alarm
- or danger
- acquittals and stale cases cannot be the sole basis
- subjective satisfaction must be supported by objective material.
