Imran Abdul Wahid Hasmi vs The Dy.Commissioner Of Police on 21 June, 2016
ig It is also
observed that the proposed externee is entitled before an order of
externment is passed under Section 56 of the said Act to know
the material allegations against him and the general another of
those allegations. The learned counsel further relied upon a
decision of this Court in the case of Hemant Koli Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr.2 In the said decision, the issue which was
under consideration is that while issuing the notice either under
Section 56 (1) (a) or (b) of the said Act, it is not just sufficient to
mention or give the general particulars of the alleged activities
which are causing disturbance in the localities but, it must also
be further stated in the notice that in the opinion of such officer,
witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in
1 AIR 1973 SC 630
2 1991 (1) (Crimes) 293
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2016 00:01:24 :::
rpa 6/14 wp-1784-15.doc
public against such person by reason of apprehension on their
part as regards the safety of their persons or properties. Unless
the Externing Authority was satisfied that the witnesses are not
willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the
proposed externee due to fear of their persons or properties, the
notice would be in contravention of the said provisions. The
Court was pleased to observe that the satisfaction that the
witnesses are not willing to come forward as stated above, was
not reflected in the notice and that unless the proposed externee
is appraised of the said conditions, the Externing Authority
cannot initiate the proceedings under the said Act. The learned
counsel further relied upon a decisions of this Court delivered in
Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 4393 of 2013 and 2405 of 2012.