1 Judgment WP.65-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.65 OF 2011 Shri Raju @ Shendi Bhishan Tak, ] Age : 23, R/at : Subhash Nagar, ] River Road, Pimpri, ] Pune. ] ..PETITIONER. Versus 1. The Principal Secretary ] of Home Department, ] Mantralaya, Mumbai. ] 2. The Deputy Commissioner ] of Police, Pune Zone -3. ] 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: 27th 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 4th May, 2010 passed by the 2 Judgment WP.65-11 Externing Authority - DCP, Zone-I, Pune City and the order dated 31.12.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the externment order. 3. By the externment order the petitioner was externed for the period of one year and six months from Pune District and rural. 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)(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, 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, Pimpri Division, Pune on 9th April,2010. In the said notice, details of the offences were mentioned as under : Sr. No. Police Station C.R. & Sections Status 3 Judgment WP.65-11 1. Pimpri 185/2007, under sections 147, 148, 326, 323 of I.P.C. Pending in the Court 2. Pimpri 02/2010, under sections 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Pending in the Court 3. Pimpri 77/2010, under sections 324,427, 504, r/w 34 of I.P.C. Pending in the Court 7. Apart from the above pending cases, there is mention in the show- cause notice regarding two in-camera statements of the witnesses recorded for incidences on respective dates 1.3.2010 and 6.3.2010 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 submitted his written representation in the last week of April, 2010. 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 Pimpri area and other areas of Pune District, he passed the externment order on 4.5.2010 externing the present petitioner for a period of two years from Pune City and Pune District. 4 Judgment WP.65-11 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 the grounds of Section 56(1)(b) of Mumbai Police Act. However, in the show-cause notice, the grounds contemplated by Section 56(1)(b) are 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. iii. The order of externment imposes unreasonable restrictions on the personal liberty of the petitioner in that, whereas his activities are alleged to be restricted to an area within the jurisdiction of the Pimpri Police Station, the order of externment not only extends to the whole City of Pune but to the rural District of Pune also. Inasmuch as the alleged offences 5 Judgment WP.65-11 mentioned in the show cause notice are registered with Pimpri Police Station. 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 1.3.2010 and 6.3.2010, time as 10:00 p.m. & 8:00 P.M., are respectively mentioned as to the happening of the event with respect to respective witness Nos. 1 and 2. 12. In both the in-camera statements, the specific dates are given on which the incidents happened. So far as the first incident is concerned, it happened on 1.3.2010 when the witness had stopped his auto rickshaw near Pimpri over bridge for business, the petitioner and his associates hired the rickshaw of the petitioner and when the witness demanded the fare the petitioner refused. He torn the hood of auto rickshaw and threatened and pointed out a sword to the neck of the witness and gave threat of dire consequences to kill the witness. However, out of fear the witness did not lodge any complaint. 13. So far as the second witness is concerned, the incident happened on 6th March,2010 at night time at 8:00 p.m. when witness was returning from job along with salary the petitioner and associates arrived on the spot and showing a knife robbed the amount of Rs. 1300/- from the pocket of witness and gave threats of dire consequences warning the witness not to disclose this incident to anybody. 14. Considering the details as given in the in-camera statements of 6 Judgment WP.65-11 the two 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. 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)(b) of Bombay Police Act. Section 56(1)(b) contemplates that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the proposed externee is engaged or about to be engaged in commission of an offence involving force or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of I.P.C. 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) (b) are not mentioned. It is specifically mentioned in the show cause notice that the petitioner was indulging in the activities of commission of offence involving force and violence and the witnesses are not coming forward to lodge complaint out of fear of danger to the life and property. In view of these averments and the contents of the show cause notice, the second 7 Judgment WP.65-11 argument also cannot sustain. 16. So far as the third objection is concerned, the area of Pimpri and nearby area is so geographically intermingled with entire Pune City and for that matter it is but necessary to extern the petitioner from Pune City and Pune District coming under Police Commissionrate and Pune Division. Hence, third objection also cannot sustain. 17. 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.65 of 2011 is dismissed. Rule stands discharged accordingly. (A. R. JOSHI, J.)