1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 150 OF 2010 Shaikh Taher s/o Shaikh Rahim Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents ... Mr. Amit A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.D. Rakh, A.P.P. for respondents No.1 to 4 ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 29th March, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner for the first time is trying to raise question, as to whether the authorities below could have placed reliance on certain secrete statements recorded against the petitioner and used it while appreciating circumstances and evidence against the petitioner. There is no doubt that as many as four secrete statements were recorded during the investigation stage and before proposal of externment was sent against the petitioner. The petitioner was sent a show cause notice by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, who was conducting inquiry under Section 56 of Bombay Police Act. The show cause notice did mention that the police proposed to use the secrete statements against the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner 2 made any grievance against the said proposal. The petitioner was sent to appellate Court, by this Court, when he sought to challenge the order passed against him by the Deputy Commissioner of Police dated 20th May, 2009. Accordingly, the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority under Section 60 of the Act. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner, while filing and pressing the appeal challenged the legality of the use of secrete statements which were recorded against the petitioner by the authorities before they took out proceeding for externment. Because of this lapse on the part of the petitioner, the order impugned did not discuss as to whether secrete statements could be used in proceedings under Section 56 of Bombay Police Act. For the first time in this Writ Petition, the petitioner cannot raise this issue though the Court in earlier Judgments held that secrete statements cannot be used in such proceedings without giving sufficient opportunity to the externee to deal with such statements. The petition should, therefore, fail. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed. [ A. V. NIRGUDE, J. ] srm/criwp150.10