Bombay High Court
Tukaram Kalu Madhvi vs P.P. Shrivastav, Deputy Commissioner ... on 18 September, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987(3)BOMCR372
JUDGMENT V.P. Tipnis, J.
1. The petitioner was externed by order dated the 19th of January, 1987 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, New Bombay, from the districts of Thane, (Greater Bombay) and Raigad for a period of two years. The appeal filed by the petitioner to the State Government was also dismissed. The petitioner takes exception to the order of externment and the appellate order by this petition.
2. Mr. Chitnis, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the order of externment is bad in law, inasmuch as the notice issued under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act does not conform to the provisions of section 59 and it does not indicate even generally the material allegations in respect of allegations purporting to be under section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act. Mr. Chitnis in this behalf heavily placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court reported in Jawahar Pannlal v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, 1963(1) Cri.L.J. 263 as also the Division Bench judgment of this High court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 218 of 1987 Shera Asam alias Kawarmal Vaswani v. Shri M.V. Chitale, and another, decided on the 14th of August, 1987 Mehta and Daud, JJ. Mr. Chopada, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, contended that if the notice under section 59 is read in proper perspective. It does comply with all the requirements of section 59 of the Bombay Police Act and, therefore, there is no infirmity either in the notice or in the final order of externment.
3. It is absolutely clear from the order of externment that the order is passed under section 56(1)(a) as also under section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act. In fact the order expressly states so at more than one place. The notice under section 59 mentions five specific items. The first is an offence committed under sections 147, 148, 149, 336 and 427 I.P.C. on the 25th April, 1986. The second is an offence committed on the 29th of April, 1986, the third is on the 23rd of May, 1986 and the fourth and the fifth consist of chapter cases. The notice thereafter proceeds to state that "offences are registered against you and inspite of the fact that you have been arrested therefore thee is no improvement in your conduct". It further specifically mentions : "You are a high handed person and a terrorist and, therefore, you have created danger to the life and property of public." It further mentions : "You have become habituated to commit offences of affray, assault and causing injuries." Mr. Chopda, the learned Public Prosecutor, contends that the sentences quoted above in inverted commas is a sufficient notice in the eyes of law, and this should satisfy the requirements of section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. It is not possible to accept this contention. The intention of giving notice under section 59 is obviously to enable the externee to give whatever explanation he has to give in regard to the allegations made against him. Though all details and particulars need not and cannot be given in the notice under section 59, still the section enjoins the externing authority to give at least generally the material allegations in the said notice. In the notice under consideration we find that the allegation is so vague that it does not give any idea to the petitioner at all about the locality, area or the period during which he is alleged to have conducted himself in such a manner as to create danger or alarm to person or property within the meaning of section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act. In view of this, we hold that in the facts and circumstances this case the petitioner is denied his right to give ground in section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act. This must vitiate the final order of externment.
4. Accordingly, impugned order of extrenment is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.