Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Prafulla Vitthalrao Dapurkar, challenged an externment order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Morshi, under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, externing him from the municipal limits of District Amravati for two years. The petitioner was a 24-year-old agriculturist from Ner Pinglai, Morshi, Amravati. The High Court of Bombay at Nagpur, comprising Justices R. K. Deshpande and M. G. Giratkar, heard the petition. The court noted that the order of externment under Section 56(1)(b) requires a mandatory ingredient that the authorities must form an opinion that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against the person due to apprehension for safety of their person or property. The court found that this requirement was not satisfied in the order. The order merely mentioned pending prosecutions and prohibitory orders against the petitioner, but there was no material to substantiate the live link between the petitioner's activities and the need for externment. Additionally, although the respondents' reply referred to in camera statements, the order itself made no reference to them, and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to respond to such allegations in the show cause notice. The court also noted that the petitioner had been acquitted in Crime No. 81 of 2007 under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, but the order incorrectly showed the proceeding as pending. In view of these deficiencies, the court held that the order of externment could not be sustained and allowed the writ petition, quashing the externment order.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) - Mandatory Requirement - The order of externment under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act requires a mandatory finding that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the person due to apprehension for safety of their person or property. In the absence of such material, the order cannot be sustained. (Paras 3-5) B) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Live Link - Mere pendency of criminal cases and prohibitory orders against the petitioner does not constitute a live link to substantiate the order of externment. The authorities must demonstrate a nexus between the alleged activities and the need for externment. (Para 3) C) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - In Camera Statements - Where the order of externment makes no reference to in camera statements, such statements cannot be relied upon in reply without providing the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the allegations in the show cause notice. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of externment passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act is sustainable when there is no material to show that witnesses are unwilling to come forward to give evidence against the petitioner due to apprehension for safety of their person or property.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. The order of externment dated 13.10.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Morshi under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act is quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56(1)(b) of Maharashtra Police Act requires mandatory finding that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence due to apprehension for safety of person or property
- Mere pendency of criminal cases and prohibitory orders does not constitute live link to substantiate externment
- In camera statements not referred to in order cannot be relied upon without opportunity to petitioner to respond
