ASHOK DHARMA VAITI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated the 4th of June 1985 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I. Thane externing the Petitioner from the limits of Thane District and Greater Bombay for a period of two years is impugned hi this Petition on various grounds.

(2.) Notice dated the 27th of September 1984 under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act was issued to the Petitioner. In the said notice five offences registered against the Petitioner bearing Rabale Police Station C.R. Nos. 339 of 1979, 334 of 1981, 12 of 1983, 127 of 1983 and another of 1984 were mentioned. Thereafter four N.C. complaints were also referred to. The notice mentions that offences as mentioned therein have been registered against the Petitioner and the Petitioner has been arrested, that the Petitioner has become habituated to commit offences against the person, that he commits breach of peace by abusing and threatening the citizens in the village and nobody comes forward to lodge a complaint or give evidence against the Petitioner and that the Petitioner has created an atmosphere of fear in the village of Airavli and has become a source of danger to the lives of the people living therein. The Petitioner gave a written reply to this show cause notice. He specifically mentioned that only one case bearing Criminal Case No. 334 of 1981 is pending in the Court and he has been acquitted in all other cases in which evidence of the complainants and the witnesses has been recorded. He further mentioned that he is a worker working in Philips India, Belapur Road, drawing a salary of Rs. 2,100/- per month. He denied that he is committing any offences, inasmuch as he regularly works in Philips India Ltd. Ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, by his order dated the 4th of June 1985, externed the Petitioner. In the final order it is mentioned: (i) That since November 1979 his acts and movements are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger and harm to the residents of the localities known as Airoli and theT areas adjoining thereto, (ii) That he threaten., assaults the residents, indulges in arson, uses criminal force even on the Government servants etc., (iii) That he uses deadly weapons like knives, iron bars in the course of his illegal activities, (iv) That the offences committed by him and about to commit are punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, (v) That the witnesses in respect of his acts and movements mentioned above are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against him by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their persons and property in that they apprehend that they would be assaulted and their property would be damaged by him if, they do so.

(3.) Mr. Lonkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, contended that there is total non-application of mind on the part of the externing authority, inasmuch as out of the five cases mentioned in the notice he was acquitted in four cases even prior to the issuance of the notice under section 59. This fact was clearly mentioned by the Petitioner in the reply to the notice. Even then, in the final order the Deputy Commissioner has obviously relied on the cases starting from 1979 mentioned in the show cause notice. In the affidavit filed the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police he has stated: I say that acquittal of the petitioner from the case referred to in the said para, was due to the turning hostile of the prosecution witnesses as a consequence of the fear instilled in their mind by the petitioner. Further he has stated: I repeat and say that in the cases referred to by the petitioner he was acquitted because none of the witnesses dared to depose against the petitioner out of fear. The petitioner is a dangerous man and therefore nobody comes forward to speak against him in public or nobody comes openly to complain against him. Against this dangerous nature of the petitioner he came to be acquitted for want of sufficient evidence in the said cases These statements are absolutely without any basis therefore In fact from the copies of the judgments produced in certain cases, it is evident that witnesses were examined and the acquittal is not at all based solely on the ground that the witnesses have turned hostile.