PRAMILA ANAND SING Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeal and Security) dated January, 2004 in appeal filed by the Petitioner questioning the justness of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-X, Murnbai, dated 2nd December, 2003, externing the petitioner from the areas of Mumbai city, Mumbai Suburban, Thane and Raigad Districts, for a period of two years from the date when he removes himself from those areas, in exercise of powers under section 56 (1) (a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

(2.) The first contention raised before this Court is that there was only one criminal case registered against the Petitioner. Indeed, reliance is also placed on two in camera statements by the authority to justify the impugned action against the Petitioner. However, submits learned Counsel for the Petitioner, those in camera statements are stereo-type, which only shows the absurdity of the material, which was reckoned by the competent authority for considering proposed action of externment. It is next contended that, at any rate, the material which has been taken into account by the competent authority cannot be said to be sufficient to take recourse to draconian provision, such as section 56 of the Act, which restricts the locomotion of the person to enter a particular area which in turn impinges upon his fundamental right. To support the above proposition, reliance was placed by the Petitioner on the decision in the case of (Balu Shivling Dombe v. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur and another) , reported in A. I. R. 1969 Bom. 351, which had occasion to examine the purport of section 56 (1) (a) of the Act. Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of (Bhausaheb Jagannath Chavan v. The State of maharashtra and others) , reported in 1995 (2) Bom. C. R. 383, which has observed that the act governs only special cases requiring special treatment, that is to say, cases, which cannot be dealt with under the ordinary law. Reliance is also placed on another decision of our High Court in the case of (Chhotu Siddinath Kunwar v. State of Maharashtra and another) , reported in 1990 (Supp. ) Bom. C. R. (N. B. ) 753 : 1989 Mh. L. J. 1021, which has noted the purport of section 56 of the Act, in particular in paragraph 8 there of.

(3.) Having considered the rival submissions and going through the record, in my opinion, the petition is devoid of merits. The show cause notice specifically refers to criminal case registered against the Petitioner for offence punishable under sections 452, 385, 323, 504 read with section 34, Indian Penal code, which obviously is covered under the specified Chapters referred to in section 56 (1) (b) of the Act. The show cause notice then refers to the in-camera statements, which indicates that the Petitioner, in association with his brother-in-law, against whom five criminal cases are pending, moves in the locality threatening the residents and shopkeepers, collecting extortion money and that residents are apprehensive of the Petitioner and not willing to depose against him. Specific instances are referred to by the two witnesses whose in camera statements have been recorded about the movements of the Petitioner with deadly weapon and using that deadly weapon, when required. It is on that "basis the matter was considered by the appropriate authority and subjective satisfaction reached that the movements or acts of the Petitioner were causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the person or property or that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner was engaged in the commission of offence punishable under the specified chapters of the Indian Penal Code and witnesses were not willing to come forward to depose against the petitioner.