VISHNU RAMCHANDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, Second Court, Maza-gaon, under S. 142 of Act XXII of 1951 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for sis months.

(2.) IT is common ground that the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Ss. 380 and 114, Indian Penal Code, by the Presidency Magistrate, 13th Court, Bombay, on 16-11-1949 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. On 15-10-1957 the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, C. I. D. , Greater Bombay, made an order under S. 57 of the Bombay Police Act, externing the petitioner. At that time the petitioner was facing a prosecution under S. 411, Indian Penal Code, or in the alternative under S. 124 of the Bombay Police Act. The externment order was, therefore, not executed on the petitioner and he was allowed to stay on within the limits of Greater Bombay. On 10-7-1958 the Criminal Case came to an end and the petitioner was acquitted. Immediately thereafter, he was taken by a Police Constable to Mumbra Railway Station and left there. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, instead of staying out of Greater Bombay, came into the city in breach of the aforesaid order and was arrested by a Police Constable near Pydhonie. The Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that though he was originally taken by a Police Constable to Mumbra, he was forcibly brought by him to Byculla and from there he was forced to go to Pydhonie. The learned Magistrate did not accept the version of the petitioner and convicted and sentenced him as already stated.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner Mr. Kini has raised three points. The first point is that the Deputy Commissioner of Police did not apply his mind to the facts of the case before making the order of externment. The second point is that S. 57 of the Bombay Police Act is prospective in application and that before an order could be made there under it had to be established that the person against whom the order is made had been convicted of an offence falling under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code subsequent to the coming into force of the Act. The third ground is that the belief entertained by the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner was likely to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to that for which he was convicted was based on the fact that the petitioner was facing a prosecution before the Magistrate in Bombay, and that since the petitioner was ultimately acquitted in the case against him, the foundation for making the order had disappeared.