BABAN SUDAM KAMBLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner challenges Annexure-A order as well as Annexure-B Notice. These notice and order rendered under section 56 (1) (a), (b) and section 59 respectively of the Bombay Police Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Qazi, has submitted that this notice and order are not sustainable in the eye of law, for this order is beyond the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Police who rendered it and according to the learned Counsel if the order is given effect to, as it now stands, the very i. e. section 56 (1) (a), (b) on the basis of which the order is rendered would become opposed to Article 19 (1) (d) and (e) of the Constitution of India. The next point urged by the learned Counsel is, though there is allegation in the notice as well as a statement in the impugned order to the effect that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against the petitioner out of fear, it is not established that summons to the witnesses has ever been issued.

(2.) AS regards the first point, what the learned Counsel maintained was, though the notice mentions of the illegal activities of the petitioner in the localities of Imamwada, Patel Chowk and nearby localities, the order purports to extern him from the whole of the Nagpur city and Nagpur rural. According to him, when his activities, as noticed are confined to Imamwada, Patel Chowk and nearby localities, the order externing him from whole of the Nagpur city and Nagpur rural area cannot be supported as when section 56 is understood in the context of Article 19 (1) (d) and (e) of the Constitution, the same cannot yield an interpretation to the effect that the authority can extern a person from an area which in not covered by his activities. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of (Balu Shivling Dombe v. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur) A. I. R. 1969 Bom. 351 : 1969 Cri. L. J. 1341 in support of his aforesaid submissions. Para 9 of the decision would show that the effect of the order in that case was extended to three revenue districts of Solapur, Pune and Satara. This decision of course lays down that the section cannot be interpreted so as to enable the authority to extend the area of externment without reference to the purpose of externment.

(3.) THE notice states that the activities of the petitioner is in the localities of Imamwada, Patel Chowk and nearby localities. The instances of his criminal activities are enumerated in the notice. The notice purports to proceed on the basis that the activities of the petitioner is in Imamwada, Patel Chowk and nearby localities.