Gujarat High Court
Ranchhod Ramji Machi vs B.J. Gadhvi And Anr. on 17 February, 1986
Equivalent citations: 1986CRILJ1829, (1987)1GLR1
Author: S.B. Majmudar
Bench: S.B. Majmudar
JUDGMENT P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.
1. This is a petition to quash and set aside the impugned notice at annexure 'A' and the impugned orders at annexure 'B' passed by respondent No. 1 and confirmed in appeal by respondent No. 2 at annexure 'C'. The petition further prays for a declaration that provisions of Sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act are ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India and, therefore, they have to be struck down.
2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is involved in offences in which force and violence were used punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, that the petitioner is moving with his associates with dangerous weapons like axe, iron-bars etc; that he is robbing the money and the valuables from the innocent persons passing on the road at the point of knife by giving threat of violence and giving threat to kidnap them; that he is involved in the offences using force and violence punishable under Sections 326, 114, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 506(2), 385, 386, 114 of Indian Penal Code and offences under Sections 394 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and that the petitioner is a fierce and head-strong man. It has been further alleged against the petitioner that he is indulging in this type of acts of violence in the Nanpura Hab ishah Street, near Masjid, Gopipura Main Road, Nanpura, Timaliyawad, Nanpura Bazaar areas of Surat City. The petitioner being a fierce and head-strong man, witnesses are not willing to openly come and give evidence since they apprehend danger to their lives and properties. In view of these activities, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 21 -9-1984 under Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act by the Deputy Police Commissioner, Surat City. The petitioner filed his reply denying all these allegations. By an order dated 12-6-1985, the Deputy Police Commissioner, Surat City ordered that the petitioner should go out of the limits of areas coming in the jurisdiction of the Surat city Police Commissioner, Surat (Rural), Bulsar and Bharuch districts for a period of two years within two days from the receipt of the said order. The order further states that if the petitioner is not externed from the contiguous districts, then there is reasonable apprehension that the petitioner is likely to continue his activities through the help of his associates and agents in the present days of fast transportation facilities. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act to the Government of Gujarat. The Government of Gujarat, after satisfying itself with the grounds of externment levelled against the petitioner herein, confirmed the order of externment with certain modifications. The Government modified the order to the effect that the petitioner is externed from the jurisdiction of Surat City Police Commissioner for a period of one year from the date of the said order. Thus, the Government of Gujarat set aside the order of externment of the petitioner from the contiguous districts of Surat, Bulsar and Bharuch and also reduced the period of externment from two years to one year. It is against these orders that the petitioner has preferred the present special criminal application.
3. Mr. Sheth, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted to this Court that he is not pressing the question of vires as regards Sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act as at present. The learned Counsel, apart from other considerations, stressed the point that the notice issued which is at annexure 'A' to the petition is vague and on this ground alone, it has to be set aside.
4. We have carefully gone through the notice which is at annexure 'A' to the special criminal application. In the said notice, various acts of violence committed by the petitioner have been alleged including the places wherein such activities were carried on by the petitioner herein. Nowhere in the notice or in the order of externment, it is mentioned as to during which period such offences were committed by the petitioner herein. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Mahbubkhan AIR 1968 SC 1468 : 1969 Cri LJ 26, the Supreme Court had to deal with Sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act and also the nature of allegations which will enable the authorities to consider and pass externment order. There is a specific mention in this Supreme Court judgment that notice for externment should contain the period during which the acts are said to have been committed as well as the area where they seem to have been committed This view has also been taken by us in special criminal applications Nos. 310 and 311 of 1985 decided on 5th October 1985. When these are all mandatory requirements for passing an order of externment, failure to mention in the notice the period during which such acts are said to have been committed will definitely vitiate such notice issued by the externing authority. Mr. G. D. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the respondents fairly stated that nowhere in the notice the period during which such acts are said to have been committed is mentioned. If that be so, the notice issued for the purpose of externing the petitioner has to fail and no order of externment can be passed on such vague notice. The petitioner has correctly taken this as one of his grounds in his petition and stated that notice issued is vague and as such, the order of externment has to be struck down. On this short ground, we are of the view that the externment order passed by the externing authority and confirmed by the State Government under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act has to be quashed. For all these reasons, rule is made absolute and the orders of externment passed by the externing authority and also as confirmed by the State Government are quashed and set aside.