Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nagesh Gangadhar Vibhute, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court (Bench at Aurangabad) challenging an externment order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dharmabad (respondent no.3) under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and the appellate order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad (respondent no.4) confirming the externment. The petitioner was directed to remove himself from the limits of Nanded district for a period of two years. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice issued to him did not contain particulars of the offences alleged against him, and that the authority did not examine any witnesses to ascertain their unwillingness to depose against him in public. The petitioner argued that the externment order was based on vague allegations and suffered from non-application of mind. The State, represented by the APP, opposed the petition. The court examined the record and found that the show cause notice merely stated that the petitioner was involved in offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Police Act without specifying the nature, date, place, or other particulars of those offences. The court also noted that the authority did not examine any witnesses to satisfy itself that they were unwilling to come forward to depose in public. Relying on precedents, the court held that the externment order was illegal and unsustainable. The court quashed and set aside both the externment order and the appellate order, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 56(1)(b) - Validity of Externment Order - The petitioner challenged an externment order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dharmabad and the appellate order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The court held that the show cause notice did not contain particulars of offences and the authority failed to examine witnesses to ascertain their unwillingness to depose. The externment order was quashed and set aside. (Paras 2-10) B) Criminal Law - Externment - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 56(1)(b) - Show Cause Notice - The court held that the show cause notice must specify the particulars of offences alleged against the proposed externee. Vague allegations without details of dates, places, and witnesses render the notice defective and the consequent order illegal. (Paras 5-7) C) Criminal Law - Externment - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 56(1)(b) - Examination of Witnesses - The court held that the authority must examine witnesses to satisfy itself that they are unwilling to come forward to depose in public. Failure to do so vitiates the externment proceedings. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is sustainable when the show cause notice does not specify particulars of offences and witnesses are not examined.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The externment order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dharmabad and the appellate order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in those terms.
Law Points
- Externment order must be based on specific allegations
- not vague statements
- Show cause notice must contain particulars of offences
- Failure to examine witnesses vitiates externment proceedings
- Section 56(1)(b) Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 requires satisfaction that witnesses are unwilling to come forward
- Non-application of mind by authority renders order illegal.
