SUDHIR RAVIRAJ CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has taken an exception to the order dated 21st February, 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mumbai Zone VIII, Mumbai in exercise of powers under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has invited our attention to the show cause notice issued under Section 59 of the said Act and the impugned order of externment, which externs the Petitioner from Districts of Bombay and Bombay Suburban for a period of one year. His submission is that there is no subjective satisfaction recorded by the Externing Authority that witnesses are unwilling to come forward and to give evidence in public against the proposed Externee by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person and property. It is submitted that the order of externment stands vitiated as the said subjective satisfaction has not been recorded. He also pointed out that though show cause notice refers to contents of the alleged incamera statements of two witnesses, in the impugned order of externment, there is no reference to the contents of the alleged incamera statements.

(2.) The learned A.P.P. supported the impugned order by submitting that the show cause notice makes detailed reference to the incamera statements. The show cause notice specifically alleges that witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the Petitioner. He submitted that, on the basis of show cause notice, by recording subjective satisfaction of the aforesaid fact, the impugned order has been passed and, therefore, no interference is called for.

(3.) We have carefully considered the submissions. It will be necessary to make reference to subsection (1) of Section 56 of the said Act, which reads thus: