(1.) THIS is an application for revision by one Alla Datta Mahamad Siddik against whom the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, has made an order under Section 27(1)(a) of the City of Bombay Police Act (Bom. IV of 1902) as amended by Bombay Act XIV of 1938 directing him to remove himself from the City of Bombay.
(2.) THE Advocate General, who appears for the Crown, has taken a preliminary objection that the revision application does not lie. So far as we are aware the only precedent for an application to the High Court seeking to revise an order by the Commissioner of Police is Emperor v. Gulabdin Pathan (1935) Criminal Application for Revision No.504 of 1934, decided by Beaumont C.J. and N.J. Wadia J.,. on February 8, 1935 (Unrep.) which was disposed of by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice N.J. Wadia in February, 1935. This Court was of opinion that the Police Commissioner's order, which of course was made under the Act as it stood before the amendment, was not justified by the provisions of the Act. Nevertheless it was held that, as the Commissioner was not a Court subordinate to this Court, there was no jurisdiction to interfere with the order.
(3.) IT is clear from these authorities and it is conceded that prior to the amendment of the Bombay City Police Act by Act XIV of 1938 the order of the Police Commissioner was not subject to revision by the High Court. IT is contended, however, on behalf of the applicant Here that the changes made by that amending Act have altered this position. IT is necessary, therefore, to notice what these changes are. There is first of all an alteration in the language of Section 27(1)(a). Whereas the original provision dealt with the movements and designs of gangs or bodies of persons, the clause as amended provides that the movements or acts of any person may be regulated as provided in case it shall appear to the Commissioner that they are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm. Then there are a number of sub-sections which are newly enacted. Sub-section (4) provides that before an order is made under the preceding part of the section the Commissioner shall inform the person concerned in writing of the general nature of the allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of explaining those allegations. Provision is also made for the examination of witnesses offered by the person concerned and for his appearance before the Commissioner of Police. Subsection (5). provides that the Commissioner or other officer authorised in this hehalf may exercise all or any of the powers of a Court under Sections 75 to 77 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Those are the sections of the Code dealing with warrants of arrest. Sub-section (6) provides that any person aggrieved by an order made by the Commissioner of Police under the preceding part of the section may appeal to the Provincial Government within thirty days from the date of the order. Sub-section (7), which is the one on which the applicant mainly relies, is in these terms: An order passed by the Commissioner of Police under Sub-section (1), (2) or (2A) or by the Provincial Government under Sub-section (6)(i.e. in appeal) shall not be called in question in any Court except on the ground that the Commissioner of Police or the officer authorized by him under Sub-section (4) had not followed the procedure laid down in the said Sub-section or that there was no material before the Commissioner of Police upon which he could have based his order or on the ground that the Commissioner of Police was not of opinion that witnesses were unwilling to come forward to give evidence in the public against the person in respect of whom an order was made under Sub-section (1).