STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VISHNU RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State of Bombay, with the special leave of this Court, against the order of acquittal by the High Court of Bombay of the respondent, Vishnu Ramchandra, who was prosecuted under S. 142 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment by the Presidency Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazagaon, Bombay.

(2.) On November 16, 1949, Vishnu Ramchandra was convicted under Ss. 380 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment. On October 15, 1957, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bombay, acting under S. 57(a) of the Bombay Police Act (22 of 1951), passed an order against Vishnu Ramchandra which was to operate for one year, externing him from the limits of Greater Bombay. At that time, a prosecution under S. 411 of the Indian Penal Code was pending against Vishnu Ramchandra, and he was not immediately externed, to enable him to attend the case. This prosecution came to an end on July 10, 1958, and resulted in his acquittal. Immediately afterwards, a constable took him outside the limits of Greater Bombay, and left him there. The prosecution case was that he returned to Greater Bombay, and was arrested at Pydhonie on August 24, 1958. He was prosecuted under S. 142 of the Bombay Police Act. His plea that he was forcibly brought back to Pydhonie and arrested was not accepted by the Presidency Magistrate, and he was convicted.

(3.) He filed a revision application, which was heard by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Bombay. Three contentions were raised before the High Court. The first was that the Deputy Commissioner of Police had not applied his mind to the facts of the case before making the order of externment. The second was that S. 57 of the Bombay Police Act was prospective, and could not be made applicable, unless the conviction on which the action of externment was based, took place after the coming into force of that Act. The third was that the belief entertained by the Deputy Commissioner that Vinhnu Ramchandra was likely to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to that for which he was prosecuted was based on the prosecution which was then pending, and that that ground disappeared after his acquittal. The High Court did not consider the first and the third grounds, because it held that the second ground was good.