Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rahul @ Bala Digambar Sonwane, challenged an externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhusawal under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, externing him from Jalgaon and Dhule districts. The order was modified in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, restricting externment to Jalgaon district only. The petitioner contended that the orders were passed vindictively without any sufficient grounds. Out of four criminal cases cited in the externment order, the petitioner had already been acquitted in two, but this fact was ignored by both authorities. The High Court examined the record and found that the externment order lacked any discussion or material to justify the inference that the petitioner was likely to commit offences endangering public order. The court noted that the mere registration of cases, especially when two resulted in acquittal, without any independent material or subjective satisfaction, rendered the order unsustainable. The appellate authority also failed to apply its mind independently and merely reduced the area of externment. Consequently, the High Court quashed both the original externment order and the appellate order, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Subjective Satisfaction - The externment order must be based on subjective satisfaction of the authority derived from credible material indicating that the person is likely to commit offences endangering public order. Mere registration of four cases, two of which resulted in acquittal, without any independent material or discussion of likelihood of future offences, does not justify externment. Held that the order suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed (Paras 4-6).
B) Criminal Law - Externment - Appellate Order - Section 60 Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Non-Application of Mind - The appellate authority while modifying the externment order must independently assess the material and give reasons. Merely reducing the area of externment without addressing the lack of material or the fact of acquittals amounts to mechanical exercise of power. Held that the appellate order is also unsustainable (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 was sustainable when based on stale cases and without considering acquittals
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashing and setting aside the externment order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhusawal and the appellate order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56(1)(b) of Maharashtra Police Act requires subjective satisfaction based on credible material
- mere registration of cases insufficient
- acquittal in cases must be considered
- appellate authority must apply mind
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (11) 47
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1452 of 2017
S. S. Shinde, Mangesh S. Patil
B. S. Deshmukh for Petitioner, P.V. Diggikar APP for Respondent/State
Rahul @ Bala Digambar Sonwane
The State of Maharashtra, The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bhusawal, Sub-Divisional Police Officer Bhusawal, The Divisional Commissioner Nashik
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging externment order under Maharashtra Police Act
Remedy Sought
Quashing of externment order dated 17.07.2017 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate and appellate order dated 22.09.2017 passed by Divisional Commissioner
Filing Reason
Petitioner was externed from Jalgaon and Dhule districts based on four criminal cases, two of which resulted in acquittal, without proper material or application of mind
Previous Decisions
Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed externment order on 17.07.2017; Divisional Commissioner modified it on 22.09.2017 restricting externment to Jalgaon district only
Issues
Whether the externment order under Section 56(1)(b) of Maharashtra Police Act was based on sufficient material and subjective satisfaction
Whether the appellate authority properly applied its mind while modifying the externment order
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the orders were passed vindictively without any ground, ignoring the fact that he was acquitted in two out of four cases
State argued in support of the orders
Ratio Decidendi
An externment order under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act must be based on subjective satisfaction derived from credible material indicating that the person is likely to commit offences endangering public order. Mere registration of cases, especially when two resulted in acquittal, without any independent material or discussion of likelihood of future offences, does not justify externment. The appellate authority must also independently assess the material and give reasons.
Judgment Excerpts
According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the impugned orders have been passed vindictively without any ground much less sufficient to justify the externment.
There is no discussion justifying the inference drawn by the respondent nos. 2 and 4 as to the activities of the petitioner much less to demonstrate that the petitioner is likely to commit offences endangering public order.
Procedural History
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhusawal passed an externment order on 17.07.2017 under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act externing the petitioner from Jalgaon and Dhule districts. The petitioner appealed under Section 60 of the Act to the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, who by order dated 22.09.2017 modified the externment to only Jalgaon district. The petitioner then filed the present criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of CrPC before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951: 56(1)(b), 60
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
- Constitution of India: 226
