Case Note & Summary
The petitioner challenged an externment order passed under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, externing him from Aurangabad district for two years. The externment was based on three pending criminal cases: Crime No. 518/2016 for offences under IPC sections 323, 504, 506, 34, the Indian Arms Act, and the SC/ST Act; Crime No. 688/2015 for offences under IPC sections 363, 364A, 397 and the Indian Arms Act; and a case under section 307 IPC from 2014. The petitioner was on bail in all cases, and none had resulted in conviction. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad, passed the externment order on 16 November 2017 after a show-cause notice under section 59. The petitioner appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal on 3 March 2018. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without proper hearing, that the crimes were stale and arose from civil disputes, and that there was no evidence that witnesses were unwilling to testify due to fear. The State argued that the mandate of section 56(1)(a)(b) was met and that in-camera statements showed apprehension. The High Court found that the appellate authority had failed to discuss the witness statements or consider the absence of conviction and the petitioner’s bail status. Relying on precedents, the court held that the externment order could not stand without a proper consideration of the material facts. The order of the Divisional Commissioner was quashed, the appeal restored, and the matter remanded for fresh decision within eight weeks. Pending fresh adjudication, the externment order was stayed, allowing the petitioner to enter Aurangabad district with a caution against illegal activities.
Headnote
A) Externment - Necessity of Consideration of Material Facts - Appellate Authority - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Sections 56, 59 - The appellate authority must consider whether the externee is convicted, the nature of pending cases, and whether there is evidence that witnesses are unwilling to testify due to fear. Failure to discuss witness statements and absence of conviction vitiates the externment order. Held, the order was set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 12-13) B) Externment - Requirement of Discussion of Evidence - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - The authority must discuss in brief the statements of witnesses examined, including in-camera statements, to satisfy the requirement of proper application of mind. (Paras 12) C) Externment - Pending Criminal Cases and Bail - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - The fact that the externee is on bail and not convicted, and that cases are pending, must be weighed; externment cannot be based solely on registration of crimes without material showing misuse of liberty. (Paras 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under the Maharashtra Police Act was in accordance with law, and whether the appellate authority properly considered the material facts and evidence.
Final Decision
Impugned order of Divisional Commissioner dated 3 March 2018 quashed and set aside; appeal restored to original file; appellate authority directed to decide afresh within eight weeks after summoning original record; externment order stayed till fresh decision; petitioner permitted to enter Aurangabad district with caution against illegal activities.
Law Points
- Externment order must consider whether externee is convicted
- Appellant authority must discuss witness statements
- Mere registration of crimes not sufficient
- Pending criminal cases and bail status must be weighed
- Principles of natural justice require proper hearing and application of mind
