1 WP.66-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.66 OF 2011 Shri Ganesh Bhumesh Gaikwad, ] Age : 23, R/at : Below Canol, ] Galli No. 4, Karvenagar, ] Pune. ] ..PETITIONER. Versus 1. The Principal Secretary ] of Home Department, ] Mantralaya, Mumbai. ] 2. The Deputy Commissioner ] of Police, Pune Zone -1. ] 3. The State of Maharashtra. ] ..RESPONDENTS. .... Mr.Rahul S. Kadam, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.J.P. Kharge, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 29th MARCH, 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 20th APRIL, 2011 JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Writ Petition is heard finally. Perused the accompanying documents to the present Writ Petition. 2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the externment order passed against him dated 18.08.2010 passed by the Externing Authority - DCP, Zone-I, Pune City and the order dated 31.12.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the externment 2 WP.66-11 order. 3. By the externment order the petitioner was externed for the period of two years from Pune City and Pune District. 4. Certain factual position, as emerged out from the documents produced in the Writ Petition, can be narrated in order to have proper perspective of the matter and to decide the challenge to the impugned orders. 5. Proposal was submitted to DCP, Zone-I, Pune City for initiating actions under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Mumbai Police Act, 1951 against the present petitioner mainly alleging that his activities are injurious to the public at large and such petitioner is continuously indulged in the activities involving force, violence and in offences punishable under Chapters XVI & XVII of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the activities of the petitioner are causing harm and danger and alarm to the person and property of the people in the area where he has committed offences. 6. Initially show cause notice was issued under Section 59 of the Mumbai Police Act. It was issued by ACP, Deccan Division, Pune on 16.6.2009. In the said notice, details of the offences were mentioned as under : Sr.N o. Police Station C.R. & Sections Status 1. Vishrambaug 7/07, 324, 34 of IPC Pending in Court. 2. Warje Malwadi 91/09, 307, 353, 333, 504, 34 of IPC. Pending in Court. 3 WP.66-11 3. Warje Malwadi 235/09, 326, 34 of IPC Pending in Court. 4. Warje Malwadi 37/10, 325, 34 of IPC. Pending in Court. 7. Apart from the above pending cases, there is mention in the show- cause notice regarding three in-camera statements of the witnesses recorded for incidences on respective dates - 1st May, 2009, 4th May, 2009, and 5 to 6 days prior to 14th May, 2010 giving all the details as to in what manner the present petitioner had created a terror and criminal intimidation and gave threats of dire consequences to said persons. Out of fear to the person and property said persons did not lodge any complaints. 8. After issuance of show-cause notice, the present petitioner attended the office of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Deccan Division, Pune and also submitted his written representation. Copy of the same is annexed to the present Petition at page Nos.13 to 17. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the externing authority – Deputy Commissioner of Police, Division-I, Pune City. The externing authority issued notice against the petitioner and accordingly he personally remained present. He was given personal hearing by the externing authority. The externing authority also perused the enquiry papers including the written submission given by the present petitioner and after satisfying himself with the situation as to activities of the present petitioner injurious to the public at large specifically at Vishrambaug area, Warjemalwadi and other areas of Pune District, he passed the externment order on 18.8.2010 externing the present petitioner for a period of two years from Pune City and Pune 4 WP.66-11 District. 9. The petitioner approached the Appellate Authority – Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai against the said externment order. However, by order dated 31.12.2010 the Appellate Authority confirmed the externment order. As such, both the orders are challenged in the present Writ Petition by the petitioner. 10. There are only two grounds mentioned objecting the order of externment. Said grounds are as under :- i. No particular time, place and date are specifically given in the in-camera statements and as such present petitioner could not make effective representation. ii. The externment order was passed considering the compliance of both the grounds of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of Mumbai Police Act. However, in the show-cause notice, the ground contemplated by Section 56(1)(a) is not mentioned and as such there is non-application of mind by the externing authority and hence the externment order is required to be quashed and set aside. 11. So far as the first objection is concerned, this Court has gone through the extract of in-camera statements which are mentioned in the show-cause notice. Apart from the specific dates, the approximate time as to night time is mentioned as to the happening of the event with respect to 5 WP.66-11 respective witness Nos.2 & 3 12. In all the three in-camera statements, the specific dates are given on which the incidents happened. So far as the first incident is concerned, it happened on 1.5.2009 when the witness was proceeding towards his house on motorcycle. When he reached near Karve Nagar, Mavale Ali Chowk, present petitioner along with his associates was present there and he accosted the witness. He abused the witness in filthy language and demanded Rs.3000/- saying that the petitioner has to purchase liquor by giving on-money as said 1st May was the International Workers' Day and as such the liquor was banned by the State Government. When the witness pleaded for mercy and offered to give Rs.1000/-, the petitioner became enraged and pointed out a sword to the neck of the witness and gave threat of dire consequences to kill the persons after entering the house of the witness. Thereafter the petitioner along with his associates went away. However, out of fear the witness did not lodge any complaint. 13. So far as the second witness is concerned, the incident happened on 4th May, 2009 at night time when witness was on his daily job of selling eatables on the handcart on the road. The petitioner arrived on the spot and took out a knife and abused the witness in filthy language and demanded Rs.2000/-. This witness also offered to give Rs.500/- as his business of selling eatables on handcart was not flourishing. The petitioner became enraged and pointed out the knife to the neck of the witness and thereafter turned turtle the handcart and thereafter took out Rs.1500/- from the cash box and gave threats of dire consequences warning the 6 WP.66-11 witness not to disclose this incident to the police. 14. So far as the third witness is concerned, the incident happened 5-6 days prior to 14th May, 2010 at about 8:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m.. That time the witness was proceeding towards his house on motorcycle and reached near Women's Education Institute square. At that place, the petitioner along with his associates was present and he accosted the witness and demanded Rs.3000/- for purchasing liquor for himself and his gang- members. The witness offered Rs.500/-. However, the petitioner thrusted his hand in shirt-pocket of the witness and took out Rs.2200/- and gave threats of dire consequences to the witness and boosted that even the police personnel are afraid of the petitioner and slapped the witness on his face. Fearing danger to his life and property the witness did not make any complaint to the police. Considering the details as given in the in-camera statements of three witnesses, in the opinion of this Court, the first argument cannot sustain as to the in-camera statements are lacking in material particulars so as to render the petitioner handicapped to take appropriate defence. Needless to mention that all the details as to the place, time and date are not expected to be given in such type of statements to be supplied to the proposed externee and this is more so in order to keep the secrecy of the said witnesses. Even the law does not contemplate such a situation that all such minute details are necessary. What is required to be seen is as to whether there are sufficient grounds for the competent authority to extern the person from a particular area or a District. 7 WP.66-11 15. So far as the second ground is concerned, on careful examination of the contents of the show cause notice, it is revealed that there are averments considering the application of Section 56(1)(a) of Bombay Police Act. Section 56(1)(a) contemplates that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. Considering the in-camera statements and the averments in the last para of the show cause notice, it cannot be said that the grounds contemplated by Section 56(1)(a) are not mentioned. It is specifically mentioned in last para of the show cause notice that the petitioner was indulging in the activities of threatening the people, assaulting them and causing extortion and taking away the amounts on the threat of weapon and that due to such activities, fearing danger to the life and property the people were not coming forward to lodge complaint. In view of these averments and contents of the show cause notice, the second argument also cannot be sustained and in the result in the opinion of this Court, there is no merit in the present Writ Petition and the same is accordingly disposed of with following order :- :: O R D E R :: (i) Criminal Writ Petition No.66 of 2011 is dismissed. Rule stands discharged accordingly. (A. R. JOSHI, J.)