AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.H. Bhatia, J.—Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has challenged the externment order dated 27.11.2009 u/s 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, Mumbai, whereby the petitioner was externed from the area of the Police Commissionerate, Greater Mumbai and Revenue District of Thane.
On 19.8.2009, a show cause notice was served on the petitioner as to why he should not be externed from Greater Mumbai and Thane District u/s 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act. The notice was replied denying all the allegations against him. After that, the impugned order came to be passed on 27.11.2009. The impugned order was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the Government. That appeal was also dismissed.
The impugned order shows that the petitioner had the past history with five criminal cases against him registered at Wadala Police Station. Out of them, two cases were u/s 324 IPC, one was u/s 323 IPC and one was u/s 324 and 326 IPC. There was also one case of a robbery under Sections 394, 427 read with Section 34 IPC. All these cases are pending before the Courts for trial. Besides this, two Chapter Cases u/s 107 and u/s 110 of the Bombay Police Act were opened and preventive action was taken. Bonds were taken, but there has been no effect on him.
Recently, three cases were registered against him. Crime No. 4/2009 was registered against him under Sections 3, 7(1)(a) and Section 8 of the Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act read with Lubricants & Greasing Oil Order, 1987 and Maharashtra Solvent & Rafinate Shop Licensing Order, 2007. Facts of the case reveal that on 4.2.2009, at about 11 a.m. the petitioner and his associates broke open a seal and cock of the oil tanker and committed theft of furnace oil. They were also found in possession of petroleum products worth Rs. 14,25,000/- without necessary licence or permit. Case was registered and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Dadar. It also reveals that on 31.3.2009, the petitioner and his associates had committed theft of iron bars weighing 500 kgs. worth Rs. 20,000/- from MMRDA Gate No. 3 at Wadala (East). About that, Crime No. 67/2009 and Section 379 IPC was filed against him. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Dadar. Third case is Crime No. 275/2009 registered u/s 124 of the Bombay Police Act. It is stated that on 5.7.2009, on confidential information, police checked a Tempo bearing No. MH-8-H-4350from which stolen property worth Rs. 1,09,000/- was recovered. The petitioner and his 3 associates were arrested. That case is under investigation. Two in-camera statements of Witnesses "A" and "B" were recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. Due opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause the notice. Inspite of opportunity, he could not produce any witness to show that he is not criminal by character. Taking into consideration all the material available, the Deputy Commissioner of Police passed the order of experiment on the ground that due to the illegal acts of the petitioner, alarm or danger has been created in the mind of the people in respect of safety of person or property in view of the offences committed by him under the provisions of Chapters 16 and 17 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that u/s 56(1)(a)(b), order of externment can be passed against a person if the Police Commissioner is satisfied that firstly the that movements or acts of any person are risky or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or there are reasonable grounds for believing such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code and secondly in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. The learned Counsel vehemently contended that both of these two conditions have to be satisfied.
Section 56(1)(a)(b) provides that:
Removal of persons about to commit offence- (1) Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed u/s 7 to the Commissioner and in other area or areas to which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate empowered by the State Government in that behalf (a), that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860), or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, or (bb) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is acting or is about to act (1) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti-social and other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980 (Mah. VII of 1981), or (2) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community as defined in the Explanation to Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Black marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (7 of 1980), or (c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant, the said officer may, by and order in writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm [or such prejudicial act,] or the outbreak or spread of such disease or [notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to remove himself outside such area or areas in the State of Maharashtra (whether within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the officer or not and whether contiguous or not), by such route, and within such time, as the officer may specify and not to enter or return to the area or areas specified (hereinafter referred t as "the specified area or areas") from which he was directed to remove himself.
On careful reading of Section 56, it appears that to pass externment order u/s 56(1)(a)(b), the Police Commissioner or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, must be satisfied that:
(i) Firstly, that the acts of the person are causing or calculated to cause willful danger or harm to the person or property or that there are reasonable grounds that he is engaged or about to be engaged in the commission of an offence under Chapters XVI and XVII IPC.
(ii) Secondly, in the opinion of the officer, witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence and unless such an opinion is formed by the officer, he cannot pass the order for externment of the person.
In Balu Shivling Dombe Vs. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur and Another, , the Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:
In his affidavit in reply, the Divisional Magistrate has submitted that since Thite and Utpat were members of the public, a finding that the acts of the petitioner were causing danger, alarm and harm to these persons was sufficient to support an order of externment u/s 56(a) of the Act. We are unable to accept this submission. Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, is restrictive of the fundamental rights "to move freely throughout the territory of India" and "to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India", which have been guaranteed by Articles 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution. Article 19(5) provides that these fundamental rights shall not affect the operation of any law which imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of these rights "either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe". The expression "alarm, danger or harm to person or property", which occurs in Section 56(a) of the Bombay Police Act, must if possible be so interpreted as to ensure that the provisions of that Section are in conformity with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution. It must follow that the expression "alarm, danger or harm to person or property" must be held to refer to the alarm, danger or harm to person or property of the public at large, and not of one or two individuals among the public. This inference also follows from the fact that Chapter V of the Bombay Police Act, in which Section 56 falls, bears the heading "Special Measures for Maintenance of Public Order and safety of State." We must accordingly hold that the Divisional Magistrate was not competent to pass the impugned order of externment on the basis of his finding that the acts of the petitioner had caused or were calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the two individuals, Thite and Utpat.
On perusal of the grounds for externment given in the impugned order, it appears that police have registered as many as 8 cases against the accused. Out of them, five cases are mentioned as past history and three recent cases are given as the grounds for externment order. Two of them are theft cases and one case is u/s 124, Bombay Police Act. In all seven cases against him on body or property under Chapter XVI & XVII IPC, investigation was completed and charge sheets were filed in the Court, which indicates that there were sufficient witnesses available to depose against the petitioner in respect of his illegal activities which amount to offence under Chapter 16 and 17. One case which is under investigation is u/s 124 of the Bombay Police Act but that case cannot be a ground for externment. Even though in the show cause notice, there was a mention as to what was stated by witnesses "A" and "B" in the in-camera proceedings, in the impugned order of externment, there is only mention of recording of in-camera statements of "A" and "B" in the grounds for externment, but there is no mention of what they had stated against the petitioner or that they had stated that the movement or acts of the accused are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property.
It is also material to note that in the impugned order nowhere the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police has stated that he was of opinion that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards safety of their person or property. This an important requirement for passing the externment order u/s 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act. In fact, in all the seven cases, including two recent cases, which are offences under Chapter XVI and XVII IPC investigation was completed and charge sheets were filed. It is stated that witnesses were willing to give evidence against the petitioner. As the grounds do not show that the officer had formed such an opinion, the impugned order of externment is liable to be quashed and set aside on this very ground only.
In view of the legal position discussed above and the grounds of externment given in the impugned order, the order of externment cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.
For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly.