ABEDIN RASUL BOMBAYWALA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SURAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Criminal Application is to quash the show cause notice which is Annexure A to the petition the order of externment which is Annexure B to the petition and the order in the appeal which is Annexure C to the petition. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was informed under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 by the notice dated 31-12-84 that it is proposed to extern him for a period of two years from the area of Surat City and contiguous areas of Surat Rural District of Broach and Valsad under Section 56(a) of the Bombay Police Act for a period of two years from the date of the proposed externment order. The allegations levelled against him are as follows:

(2.) The show cause notice further alleges that the petitioner is sought to be extended from the area of the jurisdiction of the Police Commissioner Surat City Surat Rural and Districts of Broach and Valsad because if the petitioner is not externed from the aforesaid areas he with the aid of his associates and agents will carry on his aforesaid activities and will involve in such offences to the speedy transportation available in these days. The petitioner offered his explanation and has also examined witnesses apart from producing documentary evidence. The Externing Authority who is the Deputy Police Commissioner Surat City after careful consideration of the explanation and oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a dangerous head-strong person and has been committing the offences enumerated above and is likely to commit the same in the future also. It has been observed by the externing authority that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner due to fear to their person and property and as such there should be an order of externment. Therefore the extermining authority under the powers conferred under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act externed the petitioner for a period of two years from the area of the jurisdiction of the Police Commissioner Surat City Surat Rural and districts of Broach and Valsad. Aggrieved by the said order of externment the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 60 to the Government of Gujarat. The Government of Gujarat in exercise of its power under sub-section (3) of Section 60 after satisfying itself that there are reasonable grounds for making an order of externment modified the order by 988 substituting that the externment will be for a period of one year and that too from the area of Police Commissioner Surat City alone. As against these orders and the show-cause notice referred above the petitioner has now come forward with the present Special Criminal Application.

(3.) Mr. Kapadia the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took up several contentions which we will be presently discussing and contended that the order of externment cannot be sustained. Mr. G. D. Bhatt the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that all ingredients necessary to pass an order of externment are found in this case and that the order of externment has been correctly passed against the petitioner herein. We will be adverting to his submission while we consider the various contentions raised by Mr. Kapadia on behalf of the petitioner herein. The first contention raised by Mr. Kapadia is that the show-cause notice does not contain the period of the commission of the offence by the petitioner herein. It is further contended that the show-cause notice is vague and devoid of any particulars as regards the offences committed by the petitioner herein. Mr. G. D. Bhatt reading the averments in the show cause notice and also the contentions in the reply affidavit contended that the show-cause notice contains all the material allegations in respect of the offences committed by the petitioner that the copies of the F.I.Rs. of such offence were also supplied to the petitioner along with the names of the associates involved with the petitioner in the said cases