1 23-9-wp2482-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2482 OF 2010 Mr. Surendra Runja Jagtap .. Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. --- Mr. Ashish Giri i/by M/s. Jay & Co. for the Petitioner. Smt. Usha V. Kejriwal, APP for the State. --- CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2 Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3 The petitioner has challenged the order of externment dated 25.03.2010 passed against him under section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act. The externment order was passed against the petitioner by the respondent no.2 -Dy. Commissioner of Police, Parimandal-3, Kalyan, Dist.Thane. The said order has been confirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 03.06.2010 which order has also been challenged. 2 23-9-wp2482-10 4 The learned Advocate for the petitioner has challenged the said order of externment on three grounds. First ground is that as the petitioner has not been convicted in any case till date, no order of externment could be passed against him. As far as this contention is concerned, it is seen that the externment order is under section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act and not under section 57 of the said Act. It is only under section 57 that it is necessary in order to extern a person that he should have been convicted of certain offences. As the order has not been passed under section 57, it is not necessary that the proposed externee should have earlier been convicted for any offence mentioned under section 57 of the Act. As far as section 56 is concerned it speaks about externment of persons who are about to commit an offence. Both section 56(1) (a) as well as section 56(1)(b) do not stipulate that a person should have been convicted earlier. This stipulatoin is found only in section 57. Section 56(1)(a) provides for externment of a person whose movements or acts are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property and section 56(1)(b) provides for externment when 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 when in the opinion of the Externing 3 23-9-wp2482-10 Authority witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such persons by reason of apprehension on their part as regards to the safety of their person or property. As far as section 56(1)(b) is concerned, the statements of two incamera witnesses clearly show that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner on account of apprehension in their mind as regards the safety of their person. In the present case, on perusal of the show cause notice, ingredients under section 56(1)(a) are also made out. Three C.Rs. in which the petitioner is involved clearly show that his movements are causing alarm, danger or harm to people. Thus as the externment order is passed under section 56(1)(a) and (b), there is no merit in the submission that the petitioner has not been convicted in any case and, hence, no order of externment could be passed against him. 5 The learned Advocate for the petitioner thereafter submitted that in relation to statements of incamera witnesses, the averments relating thereto in the show cause notice are vague and they did not give any material particulars regarding the same. Hence, the petitioner has been denied of an opportunity to effectively reply to the show cause notice and to put up his case before the Externing Authority. I have perused averments relating to the statements of the two incamera witnesses. It is noticed that all material 4 23-9-wp2482-10 particulars which are necessary for the petitioner to give an effective reply to the show cause notice are stated in the show cause notice. Date, time, place and nature of incident has been stated in relation to both the witnesses. Thus it is seen that the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity to give effective reply to the show cause notice. All the necessary particulars of the material allegations against the petitioner have been stated in the show cause notice in respect of the two incamera witnesses. Thus I find no merit in the submission advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. 6 The last submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that though incident in which the petitioner is involved pertains to Kalyan in Thane district; the petitioner has been externed from not only Thane district but also from Mumbai and Greater Mumbai. He submitted that externment from these three districts is excessive in nature as offence relates to Thane district only. As far as this aspect is concerned, Mumbai and suburban Mumbai given the latest modes of transportation cannot be considered separately. They would have to be considered together. Moreover Thane and Mumbai are ad-joining districts. Hence, in view of latest modes of commuting available and these districts being contiguous districts, it is easy to reach from Thane to Mumbai within a matter of 5 23-9-wp2482-10 minutes. Looking to the facts, it cannot be said that the externment order is excessive in nature. 7 In view of the above, no case is made out for interference. The petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) .....