Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Yasin Khan Masum Khan Multani, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad challenging an externment order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalgaon under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The petitioner was a resident of Ganeshpuri, Mehrun, Jalgaon, aged 47 years, engaged in business. The externment proceedings were initiated based on a proposal submitted by the Police Inspector, MIDC Police Station, Jalgaon on 29.03.2017, which stated that there were 10 crimes registered against the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the notice issued under Section 59 of the Act did not specify the material particulars and he was not given a proper opportunity of hearing. The State argued that the notice was valid and the externment order was justified. The Court examined the provisions of Sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and held that the notice under Section 59 must contain sufficient details to enable the person to effectively represent. The Court found that the notice in this case was vague and did not provide the petitioner with an adequate opportunity to defend himself. Additionally, the Court noted that the material on record did not demonstrate that the petitioner's movements were causing harm or that externment was necessary to prevent future offences. Many of the crimes were trivial or stale, and the subjective satisfaction of the authority was not based on cogent material. The Court held that the externment order was disproportionate and liable to be quashed. The petition was allowed, and the externment order was set aside.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56 Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Notice under Section 59 - Mandatory Compliance - The petitioner challenged an externment order passed under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 on the ground that the notice issued under Section 59 did not specify the material particulars and the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity of hearing. The Court held that the notice under Section 59 must contain sufficient details to enable the person to effectively represent, and failure to do so vitiates the externment order. (Paras 5-10) B) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56 Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Subjective Satisfaction - Necessity of Material - The externment order was based on 10 crimes registered against the petitioner, but the Court found that the material did not demonstrate that the petitioner's movements were causing harm or that externment was necessary to prevent future offences. The Court held that the subjective satisfaction of the authority must be based on cogent material and not on mere registration of cases. (Paras 11-15) C) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 56 Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Proportionality - The Court observed that the externment order was disproportionate to the alleged activities, as many of the crimes were trivial or stale. The Court held that externment is a drastic measure and should be used sparingly, only when there is clear evidence of potential harm. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order dated 10.08.2017 passed under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under Section 59 of the Act
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The externment order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalgaon under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 56 of Bombay Police Act
- 1951 requires strict compliance with notice under Section 59
- failure to provide opportunity of hearing renders order invalid
- externment cannot be based on stale or trivial offences
- subjective satisfaction must be based on material showing necessity to prevent future offences
