ANIL BANDU GORAD Vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns the order of externment passed by the Deputy Police Commissioner, Zone-II, Pune City on 13/4/2007 under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 ("the Act" for short) and confirmed by the lower Appellate Authority by dismissing the appeal filed under Section 60 of the said Act as per the order dated 19/7/2007. The petitioner has been externed for a period of one year from the territories of Pune District and the order of externment was served on him on him on 13/4/2007.

(2.) Before the impugned order of externment was passed, admittedly the petitioner was served with a show cause notice which was received by him on 13/11/2006. In the said show cause notice it was pointed out that two cognizable and two non-cognizable offences were registered against him with Sahakar Nagar Police Station and three in-camera statements were recorded from 13/2/2006 to 26/4/2006 and these witnesses had stated that on account of fear to their life and property they were not willing to come in the open and complain against the petitioner about his illegal activities. They had described multiple incidents of threats of violence and also physical assaults on them by the petitioner and his gang members.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of externment mainly on two grounds viz. (a) that in the show cause notice only four CRs were mentioned whereas in the order of externment five CRs have been referred to and thus the petitioner was not put to notice about the fifth CR and, therefore, the order is vitiated and (b) and the CRs filed are pertaining to the offences which are bailable and, therefore, the order of externment is unsustainable and it was not warranted. In support of the first contention he placed reliance on the decision of this Court (Division Bench) in the case of Isac Santan Fernandes Vs. Shri K.P.Raghuwanshi, Deputy Commissioner of Police [1987 (3) 323] Bom.C.R. 323]. There is no doubt that the impugned order of externment refers to the fifth CR as well which did not find place in the show cause notice received by the petitioner. It would be, therefore, necessary for me to examine whether the impugned order is sustainable on the basis of three in-camera statements and four CRs and it cannot be accepted that only because the petitioner was not put to notice on the fifth CR, the externment order is required to be quashed and set aside.