ons Nos 439  440 of 1955
Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights
H J Umrigar and R A Govind for the petitioner in Petition No 439 of 1955
J B Dadachanji for the petitioner in Petition No 440 of 1955 M C Setalvad Attorney General of India B Sen and R H Dhebar for the respondents
May 8
The judgment of section R Das C J and Venkatarama Ayyar B P Sinha and Jafer Imam JJ was delivered by Sinha J Jagannadhadas J delivered a separate judgment SINHA J
These petitions under article 32 of the Constitution challenge the constitutionality of some of the provisions of the Bombay Police Act XXII of 1951 which hereinafter will be referred to as The Act with special reference to section 56 as also of the orders passed against them externing them under that section of the Act
In Petition No 439 of 1955 Babubhai Dullabhbhai Bhandari is the petitioner and the District Magistrate of Thana the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sub Divisional Police Officer Bhivandi Division Bhivandi District Thana and the State of Bombay are respondents 1 2 and 3
The petitioner is a citizen of India and carries on trade in grass at Bhilad a railway station on the Western Railway
On 21st January 1955 the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sub Divisional Police Officer Bhiwandi Division served a notice under section 56 of the Act in the following terms 535 No Ext
31 of 1955 Office of the SDPO Bhiwandi Bhiwandi dated 21 1 1955
I I Shri C V Bapat Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sub Divisional office Bhiwandi Division District Thana do hereby issue a notice to you Shri Bhagu Dubai Bhandari alias Bhagwanbhai Dulla Bhai Jadhav of Bhilad District Thana that it is proposed that you should be removed outside the District of Thana and you should not enter or return to the said district for a period of two years from the date of the order to be made under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 for the following reasons II Evidence is forthcoming that your following activities have caused and are calculated to cause alarm danger and harm to person and property in Bhilad and the surrounding areas III You have been dealing in smuggled foreign liquor and maintained a veil of secrecy by criminal intimidation and physical violence to the villagers and other right thinking persons
2 Your activities have been in continuation of your similar activities for the
last five years given as under a You criminally assaulted persons with the help of your associates and did violent acts in order to strike terror into the hearts of the villagers so that they should not challenge you or your men
b You have been criminally assaulting and intimidating Central Excise and Custom officials with the help of your gang so as to stop them from looking into your anti national anti social and illegal activities
As a result of your unlawful and dangerous activities you are held in terrific awe by the Central Excise and Custom Officers and men and villagers in Bhilad area who are continuously labouring under grave apprehension of danger to their per son and property
c You and your associates were and are making use of criminal intimidation against the villagers in order to prevent them from having recourse to legal means
536 III That you and  your associates are also understood to be in possession of unlicensed firearms which has been causing considerable alarm and spreading a feeling of insecurity of life and property in the mind of villagers from Bhilad and neighbouring villages and Central Excise and Customs employees
IV The witnesses are not willing to come forward and to give evidence against you by reason of apprehension of danger and harm to their person and property
V Now I Shri C V Bapat Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sub Divisional Police Officer Bhiwandi Division District Thana in exercise of the authority conferred upon me under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 by the District Magistrate Thana under his numberMAG
2 EX dated 17 1 1955 do hereby direct you to appear before me at 11 am on 27 1 1955 at Dahanu in the office of the Sub Divi sional Police Office Dahanu for tendering your explanation regarding the said allegation
You are also entitled to appear before me by advocate for the purpose of tendering your explanation and examining witnesses produced by you
Signed and sealed this day of 21st Jan 1955 Sd    
Deputy Superintendent of Police  Sub Divisional Police Officer Bhiwandi
To Shri Bhagu Dubal Bhandari  Bhagwanbhai Dullabhai Jadhav of Bhilad District Thana
By that notice the petitioner was called upon to appear before the said police officer on the 27th January 1955 in order to enable the former to offer such explanation and examine such witnesses as he may be advised
In pursuance of that notice the petitioner appeared before the police officer aforesaid and the hearing of his case took place on different dates
The petitioner claims to have examined seven respectable persons to testify on his behalf
Ulti mately on the 11th July 1955 an order was passed by the District Magistrate of Thana externing the petitioner outside the Thana District
The order of 537 externment is exhibit D to the petition and contains the recitals that after considering the evidence before him and the explanation offered by the petitioner the District Magistrate of Thana the 1st respondent was satisfied that the petitioner engages in giving threats and assaulting Central Excise and Customs Officials men and residents of Bhilad and surrounding villages and indulges in illicit traffic of foreign liquor from Daman and that in his opinion witnessess are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the said Shri Bhagubhai Dul labhbhai Bhandari alias Bhagwanbhai Dullabhbhai Jadhav of Bhilad by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person and property
It is this order which is challenged as illegal and ultra vires and against which the petitioner has moved this Court for an appropriate writ direction or order against the respondents  prohibiting them their servants and agents from acting upon or taking any steps in enforcement furtherance or pursuance of the said order and from interfering in any manner with the petitioner s right to reside in Bhilad and carry on his business
The petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Government against the said order of externment
But the appeal was dismissed on the 9th September 1955
Against the said order the petitioner moved the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under article 226 of the Constitution but the said application was also dismissed in limine by the High Court by its order dated the 7th November 1955 The District Magistrate of Thana the 1st respondent has sworn to the affidavit filed in this Court in answer to the petition
He swears that he had passed the externment order complained against after perusing the police reports and going through the explanation offered by the petitioner and the statements of the witnesses produced by him and on hearing his advocate
He further states in the affidavit that the general nature of the material allegations against the petitioner was given to him that the material given to him was clear and by no means vague
Only the names of the persons who had given the 538 information against the petitioner were not disclosed to him inasmuch as those persons were not prepared to
come out in the open and depose against him in public as witnesses
He was satisfied that witnesses were unwilling to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner
He also affirms that the petitioner s movements and acts were not only causing alarm danger or harm to personal property of the general public round about Bhilad but also that his movements and acts were causing danger and alarm to public servants of the police force and the Central Excise who were doing very responsible work at Bhilad which is on the borderline of the Indian territory adjoining Daman area which is Portuguese territory
He admits that the petitioner was discharged by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Umbergaon because the witnesses did not appear and depose against him for fear of the petitioner
In Petition No 440 of 1955 Kunwar Rameshwar Singh is the petitioner and the respondents are 1
Shri W K Patil Deputy Commissioner of Police Crime Branch I CID Greater Bombay 2
The Commissioner of Police Greater Bombay and 3
The State of Bombay
The petitioner is a citizen of India and claims to be a social worker connected with several social organisations
He alleges that his main social activity has been the improvement of the lot of prostitutes and singing girls in certain quarters of Bombay On the 2nd November 1954 the petitioner was served with a notice under section 56 read with section 59 of the Act exhibit A to the petition setting out the allegations against him and calling upon him to ex plain those matters
In pursuance of the said notice the petitioner appeared before the Superintendent of Police to show cause against the proposed action against him
Ultimately on the 4th January 1955 the Commissioner of Police the second respondent passed an order to the effect that the petitioner should remove himself from the limits of Greater Bombay 539 within seven days
That order is marked exhibit H and is to the following effect
 Order of Externment Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 Police Station Nagpada No 7c431955
Whereas the Commissioner of Police Greater Bombay has directed by his order dated the 13th August 1954 and 11th December 1954 made under sub section 2 of section 10 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 Bombay Act XXII of 1951 that the powers functions and duties under the said Act shall also be exercised by the Deputy Commissioners of Police Greater Bombay
And whereas evidence has been placed before me Deputy Commissioner of Police Crime Branch 1 against the person known as Kunwar Rameshwar Singh to the following effect I
That since October 1953 in the locality known as Falkland Road Foras Road Sukhalaji Street Bapty Road Kamathipura and the areas adjoining thereto in Greater Bombay his movements and acts are causing alarm and harm to the persons residing in carrying on business in or visiting the said locality in that i He with assistance of his associates some of them being Sk
Makbool Sk
Hussain Abdul Rahiman Suleman alias Sapad Ahmad Yusuf alias Ahmed Dalal Shafi and others extort Money from women residing in and carrying on business either as prostitutes or singing girls in the said locality on threats of assault and of causing bodily injury to them ii That he with the assistance of the said associates assault or threaten with assault the aforesaid women who do not comply with his demands for money iii That in order to compel the aforesaid women to pay him the money demanded by him he also posts his associates at or near the places of business of the aforesaid women and prevent customers from entering the rooms of such women 70 540 iv That he with the assistance of his associates extort money from shopkeepers hotel keepers merchants and hawkers carrying on business in the said locality and from rent collectors of buildings occupied by the aforesaid prostitutes and singing girls by assaulting them or threatening them with assault and dislocation of business v That he causes damage to the property of the said hotelkeepers and hawkers of the said locality who do not pay him money demanded by him vi That he accosts persons visiting the rooms of singing girls in the said locality for the purpose of entertainment and demand money from them under threats of assault and of preventing them from visiting the said locality vii That he has committed several acts of the nature mentioned above
That witnesses to the above incidents are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against him as they apprehend that they will be assaulted by him andor by his associates if they do so
And whereas I have heard the said person and considered the explanation tendered by him and also the evidence given by the witnesses produced by him and have heard his counsel
And whereas after considering all the evidence and explanation detailed above I am satisfied that The Movements and acts of Kunwar Rameshwar Singh since October 1953 are causing alarm and harm to the persons residing in carrying on business in or Visitin the locality known as Falkland Road Foras Road Sukhalaji Street Bapty Road Kamathipura and the areas adjoining thereto in Greater Bombay and that he indulges in activities mentioned above
And whereas in my opinion witnesses are unwilling to come forward to give evidence in public against the said person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their persons Now therefore in exercise of the powers vested in me under section 56 of the said Act 1 Shri W K Patil Deputy Commissioner of Police Crime Branch 541 1 CID Greater Bombay himself hereby direct that the said Kunwar Rameshwar Singh shall remove outside the limits of Greater Bombay by Central Rly
route within seven days from the date of service of this order and I further direct that he shall not enter the said area of Greater Bombay for a period of two years from the date of this order without a permission in writing from the Commissioner of Police Greater Bombay or the Government of Bombay
W K Patil Dy
Commissioner of Police Crime Branch I CID Greater Bombay
The order quoted above is a self contained one and discloses the nature of the allegations against him which he bad been called upon to explain
The petitioner preferred an appeal to the third respondent the State of Bombay
But his appeal was dismissed on the 17th January 1955
The petitioner challenged the validity of the said order passed by the respondents by a petition under article 226 of the Constitution to the Bombay High Court but it was dismissed on the 14th March 1955 after hearing
The judgment of the High Court is Exhibit D
The learned Judge of the Bombay High Court who dealt with the petition has set out briefly the main allegations of the petitioner and the affidavit in answer to the petition sworn to by the 1st respondent here
The learned Judge observed in the course of his judgment that in view of the averments in the petition and those in the affidavit in reply it was impossible for him to hold that the Deputy Commissioner of Police knew that witnesses were willing to give evidence against the petitioner
The petitioner went up on Letters Patent Appeal and a Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice and another Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal holding that once the opinion has been formed by the authority that witnesses were unwilling to give evidence in public against the petitioner the court could not go behind that opinion
They also negatived the plea of want of bona fides in the 1st respondent who had initiated the proceedings
542 The petitioner removed himself outside the limits of Greater Bombay
Having come to know that a warrant of arrest had been issued Against him in a certain pending case before the Presidency Magistrate Fourth Court at Girgaum Bombay on the 6th April 1955 the petitioner entered Greater Bombay to attend court but he was arrested under the Act for committing a breach of the externment order
He was prosecuted before the Presidency Magistrate Sixth Court at Mazgaon Bombay for an offence under section 142 of the Act
He was convicted by the Magistrate and sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment by a judgment dated the 8th September 1955
The Magistrate s judgment is Exhibit to the petition
The learned Magistrate overruled the petitioner s contention that the order of externment passed against him was illegal relying chiefly upon the judgments of the High Court referred to above upholding the constitutionality of that order
As regards his defence that he had entered Greater Bombay in obedience to the warrant issued against him the learned Magistrate observed that as a matter of fact according to the statement of the petitioner s counsel before him he had taken that step to test the validity of the order
Secondly the learned Magistrate has rightly pointed out that the petitioner should have obtained the previous permission of the Police Commissioner before returning to Bombay as otherwise the order of externment would be rendered nugatory
The learned Magistrate also observed in the course of his judgment that no allegations of mala fides had been made against the police officers who bad initiated the proceedings against the petitioner
The petitioner went up in appeal to the High Court of Bombay which by its judgment dated the 5th October 1955 upheld the conviction and the sentence
The judgment of the High Court is Exhibit G to the petition
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court repelled the contention on behalf of the appellant that the order of externment was invalid relying chiefly upon the previous judgment of that very court upholding the constitutionality of the very order 543 impugned
Another matter referred to in the judgment of the High Court is rather significant
On behalf of the appellant reliance had been placed upon a letter alleged to have been sent to the petitioner by the Secretary to the Chief Minister granting permission to him to return to Bombay in order to see the Home Secretary
It was found on enquiry by the learned Government Pleader who intimated to the court that the alleged letter had not been signed by the Secretary to the Chief Minister and that no such letter had actually been sent to him
On that statement being made the petitioner s counsel did not press his contention that his return was after permission
The petitioner moved this Court for special leave to appeal against the said judgment of the High Court in Petition No 601 of 1955
One of the grounds in the petition was that the High Court should have held that the externment order was illegal and that therefore the petitioner s entry was lawful
A Constitution Bench of this Court by its order dated the 21st November 1955 dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal
This completes the statement of the case made on behalf of the petitioner
In answer to this petition the first respondent has sworn to the affidavit filed in this Court
It is necessary to state in some detail the facts stated in this affidavit which furnish the background to the whole case against the petitioner
The petitioner is said to be a native of Balrampur District Gonda Uttar Pradesh
After passing his school examination in 1940 he joined the then Royal Indian Navy in 1942
In the year 1946 while he was attached to section section Talwar in Bombay be was released from service
In 1947 he joined the B B  C 1
Railway as a clerk and was removed from his post in July 1947 for having made baseless allegations against his superior officer
In 1949 he made an attempt to enter the police force of Greater Bombay but that failed as he was found to be unreliable
Subsequently in August 1950 he joined the State Transport Department as a clerk but had again to be removed from that post in April 1951
Later on the petitioner obtained accommodation in 544 Bombay on a false representation that he was a refugee from Pakistan
He was prosecuted and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 30 or three months rigorous imprisonment in default
His appeal from that order of conviction and sentence to the High Court of Bombay was dismissed by a Division Bench in September 1954
On a similar false repre sentation he had obtained from the Custodian of Evacuee Property two shops in Bombay
Necessary proceedings had to be taken against him for evicting him from those shops
After his removal from Government jobs as aforesaid the petitioner came forward as a social worker directing his activities mainly to the redlight district in certain quarters of Greater Bombay inhabited by over 10000 public women
Along with his associates he started a norent campaign and resorted to violence with the help of so called volunteers who were themselves bad characters externees drunkards and persons with previous convictions
With the help of associates like those he moved in the redlight district and realised money from his victims by threat and intimidation
Thus by all questionable means the petitioner started extorting moneys by harassing the inmates of that district and those who frequented those quarters
The rest of the long affidavit running into 29 paragraphs is devoted to denying the allegations made by the petitioner that he had been a victim of police combination against him or that the procedure laid down by the law had not been followed or that the petitioner had not a fair and full opportunity of explaining his case to the authorities
The affidavit further asserts that witnesses who had given their statements to the police against the petitioner were not willing to come forward openly to depose against him and some of those witnesses who did turn up were prevailed upon by the petitioner to change their original statements made during the preliminary inquiries
On those averments it was submitted by the 1st respondent that the proceedings against him were regular and in accordance with the provisions of 545 the Act and that there was no merit in his contentions
These two petitions were heard along with Petition No 272 of 1955 which is being disposed of by a separate judgment
In that case the order impugned had been passed under section 57 of the Act
Sections 56 to 59 of the Act are closely connected
The common arguments addressed to us by Shri Purshotham challenging the validity of sections 56 to 59 have been dealt with in that judgment and need not be repeated here
It is only necessary to deal with the provisions of the section impugned in these two cases namely section 56 of the Act which is in these terms Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under section 7 to the Commissioner and in other area or areas to which the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette extend the provisions of this section to the District Magistrate or the Sub Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf a that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm danger or harm to person or property or b that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an
Offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their parts as regards the safety of their person or property or c that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant the said officer may by an order in writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or the outbreak or spread of such disease or to remove himself outside the area Within the local limits of his jurisdiction by 546 such route and within such time as the said officer may prescribe and not to enter or return to the said area from which he was directed to remove himself
In order to attract the operation of the section quoted above with special reference to the portions relevant to these cases it is necessary 1 that the Commissioner the District Magistrate or the Sub Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf as the case may be should be satisfied that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm danger or harm to person or property or that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force of violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII XVI or XVII Indian Penal Code or in the abetment of any such offence and 2 that in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their parts as regards the safety of their person or property
When the officer concerned is satisfied about these two essential matters he may direct such person to remove himself outside the local limits of his jurisdiction and not to return to the said area for a period not exceeding two years as laid down in section 58
But before passing such orders the person proceeded against under section 56 has to be given an opportunity of explaining matters against him by adducing such evidence as he may tender after he has been informed in writing as to the general nature of the material allegations against him
Such a person is entitled to appear before the officer by an advocate or attorney for the purpose of tendering his explanation
and evidence
It has not been contended on behalf of the petitioners that they had not been given the opportunity contemplated by section 59
But grievance was sought to be made of the fact that particulars of the evidence against the petitioners and of their alleged activities have not been given to them
That argument has 547 been dealt with in the judgment in the other case
It is necessary therefore to deal only with the particular arguments advanced on behalf of each petitioner peculiar to his case
In Petition No 439 of 1955 it was said that this Court had laid down in the case of Gurbachan Singh vs State of Bombay1 as follows The law is certainly an extraordinary one and has been made only to meet those exceptional cases where no witnesses for fear of violence to their person or property are willing to depose publicly against certain bad characters whose presence in certain areas constitutes a menace to the safety of the public residing therein
The words no witnesses have been emphasized as supporting the argument that unless all the witnesses before the police are unwilling to give evidence in open court the provisions of section 56 cannot be taken recourse to
In our opinion it is reading too much into the observations of this Court quoted above made by Mukherjea J as he then was
The learned Judge did not mean to lay down and we do not understand him as having laid down that unless each and every witness is unwilling to give evidence in open court the provisions of section 56 are not available to the police
The words of section 56 quoted above do not lend themselves to that extreme contention
If such an extreme interpretation were to be put on that part of section 56 it is not difficult to imagine a situation where it will become almost impossible to apply that section to any case
It was next contended on behalf of the petitioner in this case that the section contemplates witnesses other than members of the police force and employees and officers of the Customs Department
It is said that it is the duty of the police force as of the employees of the Customs Department to brave all danger and to come out in the open even against desperate criminals to give evidence against them in court and to subject themselves to cross examination
That is a counsel of perfection which every member 1 71 548 of the police force or every employee of the Customs Department may not be able to act up to
Furthermore the terms of the section do not justify any such restricted meaning being given to the word witness
Hence in our opinion there is no justification for the contention that members of the police force and employees and officers of the Customs Department must always come in the open and give evidence against criminals or potential criminals
If the officer concerned is satisfied that witnesses of whatever description they may be are not willing to come out in the open one of the essential conditions of the application of section 56 is fulfilled and it is no more necessary for them to stop to consider as to which class of persons those witnesses may come from
In Petition No 440 of 1955 the learned counsel for the petitioner had a more uphill task in view of the fact that this very order impugned bad been examined in the criminal prosecution against the petitioner by the Presidency Magistrate and by the High Court on appeal and the petition for special leave to appeal to this Court had been refused
But it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that section 56 itself wag invalid as contravening the provisions of article 19 of the Constitution an argument which has already been dealt with by this Court in Gurbachan Singh vs State of Bombay1 referred to above
In that case Mukherjea J as he then was delivered the judgment of the court after examining the constitutionality of section 271 of the City of Bombay Police Act Bombay Act IV of 1902
The operative words of that section are almost exactly the same as those of section 56 of the Act
It is not therefore necessary to re examine the constitutionality of those very provisions in this case
It is enough to point out that no attempt was made in this Court to bake the authority of that decision
Shri Dadachanji who appeared on behalf of the petitioner in this case faintly suggested that the petitioner had been proceeded against under the penal sec 1  549 tion of the Act notwithstanding the fact that he had entered Greater Bombay in order to look after the case pending against him in which a warrant of arrest had been issued
But that is a closed chapter so far as the courts including this Court also are concerned inasmuch as his conviction stands conformed as a result of the refusal of this Court to grant him special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Bombay High Court
He further contended that his conviction for his  having entered Greater Bombay itself is an indication of the unreasonableness of the restriction and of the law under which the order of externment had been passed against him
But if the petitioner had only taken the course indicated by the law namely of obtaining the previous permission of the prescribed authority he could have avoided the prosecution and the conviction
It must therefore be held that there is no merit in this contention also
For the reasons aforesaid it must be held that section 56 of the Act is not unconstitutional and that the orders passed against the petitioners are not invalid
These applications must stand dismissed
JAGANNADHADAS J
In view of the decision of this Court in Gurbachan Singh vs The State of Bombay1 I agree that these petitions should be dismissed
But I think it right to add that if the matter were res integra I should have felt difficulty in upholding the validity of section 56b of the Bombay Police Act 1951 Bombay Act XXII of 1951 in so far as it did not demarcate the application thereof to the more serious classes of offences falling within the specified Chapters serious either because of the nature of the offence contemplated or the circumstances under which it is to be committed and so forth
I should also have felt difficulty in holding a provision to be reasonable which clothes the executive officers with an authority to extern a person for so long a 1  550 period as two years
it has been said that there is a power of cancellation at any time vested in the officer concerned
Even so I should have thought that the vesting of a power to extern a person out of his home for so long a period without the obligation to review the order at some stated periodical intervals say once in three months or six months is prima facie unreasonable
Externment might appear on the surface not to be as serious an interference with personal liberty as detention
But in actual practice it may be productive of more serious injury to the person concerned or the rest of his family if he is the earning member
An externed person is virtually thrown on the streets of another place where be has got to seek his livelihood afresh
He has to start in a new society with the black mark of externment against him and may be driven thereby to more criminality
On the other hand in the case of a person under detention the State normally takes or is bound to take care of him and in appropriate cases provides also for his family
In view however of the previous decision of this Court which is binding on me I am prepared to accept the validity of section 56 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 and of the orders of externment passed thereunder in these two cases
Petition dismissed


Summary:
Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 is not unconstitutional and does not contravene the provisions of article 19 of the Constitution
Gurbachan Singh vs State of Bombay    followed
In order to attract the operation of the section the Officer concerned should be satisfied that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public but it is not necessary to show that all the witnesses are unwilling to give evidence
The terms of the section do not justify any restricted meaning being given to the word witnesses and it is applicable to members of the police force and employees and officers of the Customs Department also
Gurbachan Singh vs State of Bombay    explained
Under the provisions of section 56 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 an order of externment was passed against the petitioner by which he was directed to remove himself outside the limits of Greater Bombay and not to enter the said area for a period of two years without the prescribed permission and subsequently he entered Greater Bombay in order to attend Court in a case pending against him in which a warrant of arrest had been issued
He was convicted for committing the breach of the externment order and he contended that his conviction was in itself an indication of the unreasonableness of the restriction
Held that the restrictions cannot be said to be unreasonable as the petitioner could have avoided the prosecution
and the conviction by obtaining the previous permission of the prescribed authority
Per JAGANNADHADAS J
If the matter were res integra should have felt difficulty in upholding the validity of section 56b of 534 the Bombay Police Act 1951 in so far as it did not demarcate the application thereof to the more serious classes of offences falling within the specified Chapters
Ishould also have felt difficulty in holding a provision to be reasonable which clothes the executive officers with an authority to extern a person for so long a period as two years