Bombay High Court
Sharad S/O Vitthalrao Munde vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 19 December, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1461 OF 2016
Sharad s/o. Vithalrao Munde,
Age 39 years, Occ. Agri. & Social Work,
R/o. Sharda Nagar, Parali [Vaijnath],
Tal. Parali [Vaijnath], Dist.Beed
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Beed, District Beed
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Parali [Vaijnath], Tal.Parali
[Vaijnath], District Beed
5. The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Parali [City],
Tal. Parali [Vaijnath],
Dist. Beed. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr.P.S.Patil, Addl.P.P. for the Respondent /
State
...
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:24 :::
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
2
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.
Reserved on : 08.12.2016
Pronounced on : 19.12.2016
JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
1. Heard.
2. Rule.
ig Rule made returnable
forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.
3. This Writ Petition is filed by the
petitioner, under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, questioning the
legality, propriety and correctness of the
impugned order dated 21st September, 2016,
passed by respondent no.4 in File No.2016 /
MAG/Externment/CR-01 and also the order
passed by the appellate Authority i.e.
respondent no.2 to the extent of confirming
the order of externment of the petitioner
from Beed District, vide order dated
09.11.2016 in Appeal No.125/2016.
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
4. The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the order of
externment passed by respondent no.4 is
outcome of political vendetta inasmuch as the
same is passed at the instance of the
Guardian Minister of Beed District so as to
ensure that the petitioner is not present in
Parali [Vaijnath] Town during the period of
elections of the Municipal Council. It is
submitted that the FIR being Crime No.
273/2015 registered against the petitioner
for the offences punishable under Sections
354 (A), 341 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 25 [3] of the Arms Act is filed
at the instance of the Guardian Minister and
it is clear indication that the said FIR is
registered with false allegation so as to
involve the petitioner only to gain political
mileage in the election of Municipal Council
Parali [Vaijnath]. It is submitted that the
petitioner was elected as a member of the
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
Municipal Council, Parali [Vaijnath] for the
period from 2011 to 2016. He is also a
Director of the Agriculture Produce Market
Committee, Parali [Vaijnath] and he was also
group leader of the Nationalist Congress
Party.
5.
The order passed by respondent no.4
suffers from non-application of mind, same is
cryptic and unsustainable in law. It is
submitted that though the petitioner is
acquitted from 6 crimes after full-fledged
trial nevertheless without application of
mind the proposal was submitted by the
concerned Police Officer mentioning therein
those 6 crimes from which the petitioner
stands acquitted even before submitting
proposal for externment by the concerned
Police Officer. It is submitted that the
alleged activities of the petitioner are
within the jurisdiction of the Parali
Vaijnath Police Station in City area,
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
however, the petitioner was externed by
respondent no.4 from Beed, Parbhani, Latur,
Osmanabad and Jalna Districts. Though the
Appellate Authority has modified the order
passed by respondent no.4 to the extent of
externing the petitioner from Parbhani,
Latur, Osmanabad and Jalna Districts,
nevertheless the Appellate Authority did not
properly appreciate the contention of the
petitioner that the order passed by
respondent no.4 stands vitiated due to non-
application of mind, and therefore, the said
should have been quashed in its entire by the
Appellate Authority. It is submitted that
respondent no.4 did not follow the mandate of
provisions of Section 56 (1) (a) and (b) of
the Maharashtra Police Act, inasmuch as there
is no elaborate reference to the in-camera
statements, if any, recorded by respondent
no.4 Authority. Therefore, relying upon the
pleadings/grounds taken in the Petition,
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
annexures thereto and exposition of law by
the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
Bench at Aurangabad in the case of Iqbaluddin
Ziauddin Pirzade Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and Ors.1, and also the Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court in the cases of Shafi and
Saddam Shoukat Qureshi Vs. The Assistant
Police Commissioner and others in Criminal
Writ Petition No.2032 of 2016, decided on
11.08.2016, Yeshwant Damodar Patil Vs. Hemant
Karkar, Dy. Commissioner of Police &
another2, Imran Abdul Wahid Hasmi Vs. Deputy
Commissioner of Police and others3, Umar
Mohamed Malbari Vs. K.P.Gaikwad, Dy.
Commissioner of Police and another4 Ashfaq
Vs. The State of Maharashtra5 and Syed Noman
Hussaini Kausar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and the exposition of law by the Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court Bench at
1 2015 (2) Bom.C.R. [Cri.] 464
2 1989 (3) Bom.C.R. 240
3 2016 [3] Bom.C.R. [Cri.] 642
4 1988 Mh.L.J. 1034
5 2015 All M.R.[Cri.] 1110
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
Nagpur in the case of Sayeed Firoz Sayeed
Noor Vs. State of Maharashtra,6 and in the
case of Balu Vs. The Divisional Magistrate,
Pandharpur7 and submits that the Petition
deserves to be allowed.
6. On the other hand, the learned APP
appearing for the respondent - State relying
upon the original record submits that the
alleged activities of the petitioner and his
involvement in the commission of offences has
been thoroughly considered by respondent
no.4. It is submitted that the witnesses were
not coming forward to depose against the
petitioner, and therefore, after arriving at
subjective satisfaction on the basis of the
material collected by respondent no.4, the
order of externment externing the petitioner
from five Districts was passed by respondent
no.4. The learned APP appearing for the
respondent - State invites our attention to
6 2016 [1] Bom.C.R. [Cri.] 270.
7 1969 Mh.L.J. 387
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
the various documents from the original
record and submits that the Writ Petition is
devoid of any merits and the same may be
rejected.
7. We have carefully considered the
submissions of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and the learned APP
appearing for the respondent - State. With
their able assistance, we have also carefully
perused the pleadings and grounds taken in
the Petition, annexures thereto, original
record made available for perusal by the
respondents and also the reported judgments
cited across the Bar by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner. At the outset,
it would be apt to reproduce herein below the
provisions of Section 56 (1) (a) and (b) of
the Maharashtra Police Act reads thus:
56.Removal of persons about to
commit offence
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
(1) ....
(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
Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the
Indian Penal Code, 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
[Underlines are added]
8. Upon careful perusal of the
aforesaid provisions, an order of externment
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
can be passed against a person whose
movements or acts are causing or calculated
to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or
property as provided in clause (a). The order
of externment can also be passed against a
person if there are reasonable grounds for
believing that such a person is engaged or is
about to be engaged in the commission of an
offence involving force or violence as
provided in clause (b). An order of
externment can also be passed against a
person if that person is engaged or about to
be engaged in the commission of an offence
punishable under Chapter XII, or Chapter XVI,
or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code.
But in addition to the above, the concerned
Officer, who is dealing externment
proceedings, should be of the opinion that
the witnesses are not willing to come forward
to give evidence in public against such
person by reason of apprehension on their
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
part as regards the safety of their person or
property.
9. We have carefully perused the order
passed by respondent no.4 from the original
record, it appears that respondent no.4 had
made reference to the proposal submitted by
the Police Inspector, Parli City Police
Station. In the said proposal, there is
mention of 7 offences. Those crimes numbers
are also mentioned in the show cause notice
issued to the petitioner. Which are as under:
1] Crime No.45/2000 registered with
Parli Gramin Police Station, for the
offences punishable under Section 147,
148, 149, 324 of the IPC.
2] Crime No.62/2001 registered with
Parali City Police Station, for the
offences punishable under Sections 325,
504, 506, 34 of the IPC.
3] Crime No.84/2004 registered with
Parali City Police Station, for the
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 307 of the IPC and Section 25 [3] of
the Indian Arms Act.
4] Crime No.184/2005 registered with
Ambajogai City Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 147,
148, 354, 452, 323 of the Indian Penal
Code. ig
5] Crime No.32/2006 registered with
Ambajogai City Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 307,
147, 148, 149, 323 of the IPC and Section
135 of the Bombay Police Act.
6] Crime No.186/2009 registered with
Parali Gramin Police Station, for the
offences punishable under Sections 279,
457, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and Sections
5 and 7 of the Indian Arms Act.
7] Crime No.273/2015 registered with
Parali City Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 354
[A], 341, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 25 [3] of the Indian Arms Act.
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
10. Pursuant to the show-cause notice
issued to the petitioner, the petitioner did
file reply stating therein that out of 7
offences, 6 offences mentioned at serial nos.
1 to 6, he is already acquitted by the
Competent court even before initiating
proposal of his externment by the Police
Officer, Parali City Police Station. The
petitioner has also placed on record copies
of the judgment and order passed by the
concerned Court in those cases. While passing
the impugned order, respondent no.4 did
consider the contention of the petitioner
that the petitioner is acquitted from the
offences mentioned at serial nos. 1 to 6,
however, in the impugned judgment, it is
stated that the petitioner though acquitted
from the offences mentioned at serial nos.1
to 5, he is a habitual offender and his
activities are dangerous to the public which
are likely to cause fear in the minds of the
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
people and ultimately his activities would
lead to breach of peace and security of the
citizens. Therefore, it clearly emerges that
respondent no.4 did not consider assertion of
the petitioner, which was supported by the
copy of the judgment and order placed on
record that the petitioner stands acquitted
from the crime No.186/2009 [mentioned at
serial no.6] registered with Parali Gramin
Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 457, 504, 506, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 and 7 of the
Indian Arms Act.
11. Upon careful perusal of the
discussion in the order passed by the
respondent no.4, there is no discussion in
the said order as to how the offences
registered from the year 2000 till 2009 are
relevant for the purpose of passing the
impugned order. In fact, from those alleged
offences the petitioner stands acquitted even
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
prior to initiating proposal for externment
by the Police Officer, therefore, there is no
live link between the said offences from
which the petitioner stands acquitted and the
impugned order passed by respondent no.4. Be
that as it may, there is no discussion in the
impugned order passed by respondent no.4 that
as a matter of fact he recorded in-camera
statements of the witnesses and they deposed
about the alleged illegal activities of the
petitioner. The Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court [at Principal seat] in the case of
Yeshwant Damodar Patil [cited supra] had
occasioned to consider the scope of
provisions of Section 56 [1] [a] and [b] and
also the mandate of provisions of Section 59
of the Bombay Police Act. It would be gainful
to reproduce herein below para 3 of the said
judgment:
3. Section 56 (i) of the Bombay
Police Act visualises three
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
situations in which the order of
externment could be passed by the
designated officer. We will,
however, ignore, for the purpose of
the disposal of this petition the
third type of situation and only
analyse the two situations which are
covered by Clauses (a) and (b) of
section 56 (i) of the Act. An order
of externment can be passed against
a person whose movements or acts are
causing or calculated to cause
alarm, danger or harm to person or
property. That is what is provided
in clause (a). The order of
externment can also be passed
against a person if there are
reasonable grounds for believing
that such a person is engaged or is
about to be engaged in the
commission of an offence involving
force or violence. It is so provided
in the first part of clause (b) of
section 56 (i) of the Act. An order
of externment can also be passed
against a person if that person is
engaged or about to be engaged in
the commission of an offence
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
punishable under Chapter XII, of
Chapter XVI, or Chapter XVII of the
Indian Penal Code. This is so
provided in the latter part of
clause (b) of section 56 (i) of the
Act. But it is not enough that these
conditions alone are satisfied. In
addition to this the designated
officer should be of the 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 the safety of their person
or property.
[Underlines added]
12. The aforementioned provisions make
it abundantly clear that in order to fulfill
mandate of the provisions of Section 56 (1)
(b), the designated officer has to record his
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 the safety of their
person or property.
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
13. Yet in another exposition of law in
the case of Balu Vs. The Divisional
Magistrate, Pandharpur [cited supra], while
appreciating the facts involved in that case,
this Court held that extending the area of
externment not only outside Pandharpur Taluka
but to the Districts of Solapur, Pune and
Satara is illegal since the alleged
activities against the petitioner therein, as
stated in the show cause notice, were
confined to the Pandharpur City.
14. As already observed in the foregoing
paragraphs, it does not appear from the
discussion in the order passed by respondent
no.4 that, as a matter of fact he recorded
in-camera statements of the witnesses and
before passing the impugned order of
externment, he formed opinion that the
witnesses are not willing to come forward to
give evidence in public against the
petitioner. It further appears that there is
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
no discussion in the impugned order why the
externment of the petitioner is necessary
from Parbhani, Latur, Osmanabad and Jalna
Districts when the alleged activities /
offences against the petitioner being Crime
No.273/2015 is registered with the Parali
City Police Station.
15. In the light of the discussion in
the foregoing paragraphs, an inevitable
conclusion can be drawn that the Police
Inspector, Parali City Police Station while
submitting the proposal of externment of the
petitioner, in spite of his acquittal by the
competent court, from the offences mentioned
at serial nos.1 to 6 did mention the said
offences in the said proposal submitted to
respondent no.4. It shows non application of
mind of the concerned Police Officer at the
time of initiation of proposal for externment
of the petitioner. Respondent no.4 though
made a casual reference to the reply filed by
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
the petitioner making reference of crimes
mentioned at serial nos.1 to 5, nevertheless
did not take into consideration the
contention of the petitioner that even the
petitioner stands acquitted from the offence,
which is mentioned at serial no.6 i.e. Crime
No.186/2009 even before initiating the
proposal of his externment.
16. It is true that the Appellate
Authority modified the order passed by the
respondent no. 4 inasmuch as the order of
externment is confined to the limits of Beed
District. However, the Appellate Authority
had not taken into consideration the
contention of the petitioner that while
passing the impugned order, the mandate of
provisions of Section 56 (1) (b) has not been
adhered to/followed by respondent no.4.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that
the impugned order passed by respondent no.4
is not in conformity with the mandate of the
1461.2016Cri.WP.odt
provisions of Section 56 (1) (b) of the
Maharashtra Police Act and also suffers from
non assigning the detail reasons and hence
call for interference under extra ordinary
writ jurisdiction. Hence the following order:
ORDER
i)
The Writ Petition is allowed. The
order dated 21.09.2016 passed by
respondent no.4 and the order dated
09.11.2016 passed by respondent no.2
stand quashed and set aside.
ii) Rule made absolute in the above
terms. The Writ Petition stands
disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[K.K.SONAWANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
