PRAKASH SUPDU CHAUDHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 28-8-1990 and 11-9-1990, identical notices were served on the petitioner purporting to be under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, intimating protest action under section 56 of the said Act on the ground that he is facing trial in two Criminal Cases arising out of Crime No. 157 of 1987 and 105 of 1989 registered at Yawal Police Station and is likely to commit similar offences again and, therefore, he should show cause as to why he should not be externed from the limits of districts of Jalgaon, Dhule, Nashik, Buldhana and Ahmednagar. On the basis of these contentions an externment order came to be passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalgaon on 4-10-1990 directing the petitioner to remove himself from the districts of Jalgaon, Dhule, Nashik, Ahmednagar and Buldhana for a period of one year. This order was challenged in an appeal under section 60 before the State Government but the State Government was pleased to dismiss this appeal while limiting the area externment to Jalgaon district only by its order dated 12-12-1990. Both these orders have been challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) SHRI S. R. Palnitkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since the notice issued to the petitioner under section 59 does not say that the witnesses are unwilling to depose against the petitioner, the order of externment is without jurisdiction. He further submitted that merely because two offences have been registered against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner is likely to cause alarm, danger or harm to the residents of the locality in which the petitioner is residing. Shri S. K. Barlota, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent State, relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalgaon, and supported the impugned order.

(3.) SECTION 56 of the Bombay Police Act gives an extra-ordinary power to the authority expowered under the Act extern any person if they are satisfied about existence of any of the pre-conditions for the exercise of this power. 4 Clauses - (a), (b), (bb) and (c) in section 56 of the Act of 1951 mention reasons existence of which authorise externment of any individual. Clause (a) speaks about the movements or acts of any person which are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, (b) speaks about reasonable grounds to believe 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 Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abatement 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; (bb) speaks about reasonable grounds for believing that such person is acting or is about to act in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities and (c) speaks about the possibility of an out-break of epidemic disease as a result of continued residence of an immigrant. Unless any of these four conditions exist, Magistrate shall have no power to extern a person in exercise of powers under section 56. So far as sub-clause