Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Balasaheb Ruptakke, challenged an externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shrirampur, confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, under Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice issued by the respondent No.3 did not contain any reference to the recording of in-camera statements of witnesses, nor did it provide the gist of their allegations. The petitioner argued that this omission vitiated the entire proceeding as the provision requires the competent authority to mention such details to demonstrate subjective satisfaction that witnesses are afraid to depose publicly. The court, relying on the division bench decision in Yashwant Damodar Patil v. Hemant Karkare, held that the absence of such reference in the show cause notice renders the externment order unsustainable. The court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Show Cause Notice - Requirement of Recording In-Camera Statements - The show cause notice must contain a reference to the recording of in-camera statements and the gist of the version stated by witnesses to satisfy the subjective satisfaction of the authority that witnesses are not coming forward due to fear. Failure to do so vitiates the externment proceedings. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is sustainable when the show cause notice does not mention recording of in-camera statements or provide gist of allegations made by witnesses.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.02.2017 passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 29.10.2016 passed by respondent No.3 are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment proceedings under Section 56(1)(b) of Bombay Police Act require show cause notice to contain reference to in-camera statements and gist of allegations
- failure vitiates proceedings
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (04) 61
Criminal Writ Petition No. 384 of 2017
S.S. Shinde, K.K. Sonawane
Mr. B.G. Sagade for petitioner, Mr. D.R. Kale APP for respondent state
Sanjay s/o Balasaheb Ruptakke
The State of Maharashtra, The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shrirampur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging externment order under Bombay Police Act
Remedy Sought
Quashing of externment order dated 28.02.2017 passed by respondent No.2 confirming order dated 29.10.2016 passed by respondent No.3
Filing Reason
Show cause notice did not mention recording of in-camera statements or gist of allegations
Previous Decisions
Externment order dated 29.10.2016 by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, confirmed and modified by Divisional Commissioner on 28.02.2017
Issues
Whether the show cause notice under Section 56(1)(b) of Bombay Police Act must contain reference to in-camera statements and gist of allegations
Whether failure to include such details vitiates the externment proceedings
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that show cause notice lacked reference to in-camera statements and gist of allegations, violating Section 56(1)(b) requirements
Petitioner relied on Yashwant Damodar Patil v. Hemant Karkare to support contention
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, the show cause notice must contain a reference to the recording of in-camera statements and the gist of the version stated by witnesses to demonstrate subjective satisfaction that witnesses are not coming forward due to fear. Absence of such reference vitiates the externment proceedings.
Judgment Excerpts
in the said show cause notice, there is no whisper about the recording of any in-camera statements of the witnesses by the respondent No.3 so as to arrive at subjective satisfaction that due to apprehension or fear in the minds of the witnesses, they are not coming forward in public to depose against the petitioner.
the requirement of Provisions of Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, contemplates that the competent authority who has initiated the externment proceedings shall make mention/reference about any in-camera statements recorded and gist of the version stated by those witnesses in the show cause notice.
Procedural History
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shrirampur passed an externment order on 29.10.2016 under Section 56(1)(b) of Bombay Police Act. The petitioner appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, who confirmed and modified the order on 28.02.2017. The petitioner then filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 384 of 2017 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, which was heard and allowed on 25.04.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: Section 56(1)(b)
