-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1625 OF 2005 Shri.Vijay Dipak Pawar ..Petitioner Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Police & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.I.R.Kulkarni Advocate for petitioner Mr.Rajesh More A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPT. 19,2005 DATE : SEPT. 19,2005 DATE : SEPT. 19,2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Rule. By consent, rule is heard forthwith. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order of externment dated 1.2.2005 whereby he has been externed. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the -2- petitioner that show-cause notice is vague and as such, he was unable to effectively answer the said show cause notice. He has stated that in the show-cause notice, the description of the weapons is not mentioned nor the hand in which the weapon was held, has been mentioned so also the names of the companions of the petitioner who took part in the incident has not been mentioned. I have perused the said show cause notice and I find that in the cases relating to C.R.No.17 of 2004 it is stated that the witness was assaulted by fist and kick blows and he was also assaulted by the petitioner on the head with a stick. In the matter relating to the incamera statements the weapon i.e. Knife or Koyta has been specifically mentioned. No doubt, the detailed description of the weapon is not given, but it is not expected that any witness will give detailed description of the weapon. So also, it is not expected that externing authority should give details relating to which hand the weapon was held and the exact description of the weapon. Moreover, if the witnesses themselves have not given any such details, it cannot be expected that the externing authority would supply those -3- details. Thus, I find no merit in this submission. 5. On perusal of the show cause notice, it is seen that the general nature of the material allegations against the petitioner, have been informed to him. The petitioner on the basis of the averments in the said show cause notice, could have effectively replied to the same. Section 59 of the Act imposes a limited obligation on the authorities to inform the proposed externee of the general nature of the material allegations against him. In the case of Pandharinath Rangnekar Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Pandharinath Rangnekar Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Pandharinath Rangnekar Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Police reported in A.I.R. 1973 S.C.630 Police reported in A.I.R. 1973 S.C.630 Police reported in A.I.R. 1973 S.C.630, the Supreme Court has observed thus: . " A full and complete disclosure of particulars such as is requisite in an open prosecution will frustrate the very purpose of an externment proceeding. If the show-cause notice were to furnish to the proposed externee concrete data like specific dates of incidents or the names of persons involved in those incidents, it would be easy enough to fix the identity of those who out of fear of injury to their person or property are unwilling to depose in public. There is a brand of lawless element in society which it is impossible to bring to book by established methods -4- of judicial trial because in such trials there can be no conviction without legal evidence. And legal evidence is impossible to obtain, because out of fear of reprisals witnesses are unwilling to depose in public. That explains why Section 59 of the Act imposes but a limited obligation on the authorities to inform the proposed externee "of the general nature of the material allegations against him". That obligation fixes the limits of the correlative right of the proposed externee. He is entitled, before an order of externment is passed under Section 56, to know the material allegations against him and the general nature of those allegations. He is not entitled to be informed of specific particulars relating to the material allegations". 6. Thereafter, it is submitted that in the externment order it is mentioned that the petitioner commits robbery by extorting monies from residents, businessmen, hawkers, building contractors and shop-keepers of the aforesaid localities. It is submitted that the show cause notice only mentions about the petitioner committing robberies from shop-keepers. I have perused the said show cause notice and I find therein that it is mentioned in para no.1 as well as para no.5 about residents, hawkers, businessmen, -5- building contractors and shop-keepers and thus, I again do not find any substance in this submission. 7. Lastly, it was contended that it is not known on what material the externing authority passed the order of externment against the petitioner. From the show cause notice itself, it is clear that the externment order has been passed on the basis of CR No.17 of 2004 of Nehru Nagar Police Station and on the basis of four statements of incamera witnesses and the proposal (Inquiry Report) forwarded by the concerned Police Station. So also in the reply, it is clearly stated that the externing authority has taken into consideration the Inquiry Report, FIR and the statements of witnesses in CR No. 17 of 2004 and the statements of four incamera witnesses. Thereafter on being subjectively satisfied that it was necessary to pass the order of externment he passed the order of externment. In this view of the matter, I do not find any substance in this contention also. . Rule is discharged. [V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]