Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kamalkishor s/o Pusaram Bang, a businessman aged 57 from Jalna, filed a Criminal Writ Petition challenging the externment order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jalna under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The order externed the petitioner from Jalna district for a period of two years. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without application of mind, based solely on police reports and hearsay, without examining any independent witnesses. The petitioner had filed a detailed reply and submitted defence evidence, but the authority did not consider it. The respondents argued that the order was passed after giving an opportunity of hearing and considering the material on record. The High Court examined the record and found that the externment order was based on the statements of four witnesses, but those witnesses were not examined by the authority. The court held that the subjective satisfaction required under Section 56(1)(b) must be based on credible material, not merely on police reports. The authority failed to verify the allegations independently. The court also noted that the petitioner's defence evidence was not considered. Consequently, the court quashed the externment order and allowed the petition. The rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(b) - Subjective Satisfaction - The externment order must be based on subjective satisfaction of the authority derived from credible material, not merely on police reports or hearsay. The authority must examine independent witnesses to verify the allegations. Failure to do so renders the order illegal and liable to be quashed. (Paras 7-9) B) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Non-Application of Mind - The order passed by the Superintendent of Police under Section 56(1)(b) without considering the petitioner's explanation and without independent verification of the allegations shows non-application of mind. Such an order is unsustainable in law. (Paras 8-10) C) Maharashtra Police Act - Externment - Opportunity of Hearing - The petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing, but the authority did not consider the defence evidence or examine independent witnesses. The order was passed mechanically, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is legal and valid when based solely on police reports without examining independent witnesses and without proper application of mind.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed the externment order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jalna under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The Criminal Writ Petition was allowed. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56(1)(b) of Maharashtra Police Act
- 1951 requires subjective satisfaction based on credible material
- not merely police reports
- failure to examine independent witnesses vitiates the order
- non-application of mind by the authority renders the order illegal.
