CHANDUJI ALIAS KHICHADI BHULAJI THAKORE Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CRIME BRANCH AHMEDABAD CITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order dated 10-9-1992 passed under Sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, externed the petitioner from the city of Ahmedabad and from the contiguous districts of Ahmedabad (Rural), Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana for a period of two years. In appeal to the State Government, the period of externment has been reduced to one year and the area from which the petitioner has been externed is now confined to Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad (Rural) and Gandhinagar. In this petition, the petitioner is not only challenging the order of externment but also vires of Secs, 56 and 59 of the Act.

(2.) It was submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gurbachan's case AIR 1952 SC 22) and Hari Khemu Gawali v. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 559 are required to be reconsidered and it should be held that the said sections are violative of Arts. 14, 19(l)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court having upheld the validity of Secs. 56, 57 and 59, it is not open to take a different view as pointed at by this Court earlier also in the case of Sarjubhaiya v. Dy. Commissioner of Police, 1984 (1) GLR 538 and realising this position, the learned Advocate for the petitioner did not make further submissions. We, therefore, reject the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the validity of those two sections.

(3.) It was next contended that an order under Sec. 56 can be passed only if the externing authority is satisfied that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the proposed externee by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of then-person or property. It was submitted that in this case the satisfaction of the externing authority is only as regards the victims of the incident and not other witnesses. Thus, the requirement of Sec. 56 is not complied with and, therefore, also the order of externment is bad. In support of this contention, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Nawabkhan v: State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1471 and Spl. Criminal Appln. No. 1303 of 1992 decided on 28-8-1992. In our opinion, this contention is thoroughly misconceived. Both, in the notice and in the order what is stated by the externing authority is that the witnesses to the incidents are not coming forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner. Now, witnesses to the incident do not mean victims of the incident. Furthermore, even the victims can be regarded as witnesses to the incident. It is also not necessary that before an order of externment can be passed, it must be shown that all the witnesses to the incident are not willing to depose against the proposed externee in public. Even if some witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against the proposed externee, then an order can be passed under Sec. 56 of the Act provided other requirements are satisfied.