Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Mallu Tikaram Varma, challenged an externment order dated 19.10.2016 passed under Section 57(1)(a)(v) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which directed his externment for two years. The order was based on four convictions under Section 12(A) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, and two incamera statements. The petitioner argued that neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order contained any reference to the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority, which is essential for such an order. The State opposed, contending that the material, including the incamera statements and convictions, supported the action. The court examined the impugned order and found that while it mentioned five offences and four convictions under the Gambling Act, the incamera statements only referred to acts of extortion, with no discussion on how they indicated a likelihood of similar offences. The show cause notice also failed to address this connection. Consequently, the court held that the order lacked the requisite subjective satisfaction and was unsustainable. The petition was allowed, the externment order was quashed, and the rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Subjective Satisfaction - Section 57(1)(a)(v) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - The externment order was quashed as the authority failed to record subjective satisfaction regarding likelihood of similar offences - The incamera statements referred to extortion, not gambling, and no connection was shown between the statements and the convictions under Section 12(A) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 - Held that the order and show cause notice lacked necessary reasoning (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order under Section 57(1)(a)(v) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is valid when the show cause notice and order lack subjective satisfaction and fail to link incamera statements to the offences under the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order of externment dated 19.10.2016 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on subjective satisfaction of competent authority
- Incamera statements must show likelihood of similar offences
- Connection between past convictions and future threat must be established
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (03) 176
Criminal Writ Petition No. 9 of 2017
B.P. Dharmadhikari, V.M. Deshpande
Shri A.B. Moon for petitioner, Shri A.S. Fulzele, AGP for respondents
State of Maharashtra through Assistant Police Commissioner, Sakkardara Division, Nagpur City, District – Nagpur; Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone/ Circle No. 4, Nagpur City, District – Nagpur; State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Imambada, District – Nagpur, Tahsil and District – Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging an externment order under the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the externment order dated 19.10.2016 passed under Section 57(1)(a)(v) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the externment order was passed without subjective satisfaction and lacked connection between incamera statements and the offences.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner relied on an order dated 02.12.2016 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 845 of 2016.
Issues
Whether the externment order under Section 57(1)(a)(v) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is valid when the show cause notice and order lack subjective satisfaction.
Whether the incamera statements and convictions under the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 justify the externment order.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order contained any reference to subjective satisfaction of the competent authority.
Respondent argued that two incamera statements and four convictions under Section 12(A) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 supported the action.
Ratio Decidendi
An externment order under Section 57(1)(a)(v) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 must be based on the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority, which must be evident from the show cause notice and the order. The incamera statements must show a likelihood of similar offences, and there must be a clear connection between the statements and the past convictions. In this case, the incamera statements referred to extortion, not gambling, and no such connection was established, rendering the order unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The order of externment under Section 57(1)(a)(v) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, dated 19.10.2016 for a period of two years has been questioned in present petition.
A perusal of show cause notice dated 17.09.2016 also does not throw any light in this respect.
Connection or bearing of those acts with 1887 Act and conviction under Section 12(A) thereof, is missing.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 9 of 2017 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the externment order dated 19.10.2016. The court heard the matter on 27.03.2017 and delivered the judgment on the same day.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: Section 57(1)(a)(v)
- Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887: Section 12(A)
