Allowed

Nagesh Gangadhar Vibhute v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Aug 2017WP/744/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenged externment orders under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The High Court quashed the orders due to procedural failures, specifically the omission to record a finding on witness apprehension as mandated by law, reliance on pending acquitted charges, and enforcement across multiple districts without justification.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of externment passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner were quashed and set aside, and the Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Nagesh Gangadhar Vibhute Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

744.17WP.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 744 OF 2017

¶5

Nagesh Gangadhar Vibhute
Age : 26 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Chondi, Tq. Dharmabad,
Dist. Nanded. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. State of Maharashtra

¶8

2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded.

¶9

3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded.

¶10

4. Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad

¶11

RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

Mr.Mohasin Latif Khan Pathan, Advocate for
the Petitioner
Mr.V.M. Kagne, APP for Respondent/State.

¶14

...

¶15

S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

¶16

Reserved on : 27.07.2017
 Pronounced on : 02.08.2017

¶17

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

¶18

Rule.Rulemadereturnable

¶19

¶20

744.17WP.odt

¶21

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.

¶22

2.This Petition is filed with the
following prayer :-

¶23

“B. The Externment order passed by the

¶24

respondent no.3 – Sub- Divisional
Magistrate, Dharmabad dated 17.01.2017
and the order passed by the Divisional
Commissioner in appeal no. CR-02 dated
30.05.2017 may kindly be quashed and
set aside.”

¶25

3.The learned counsel appearing for

¶26

the petitioner submitted that, respondent
no.2 issued notice to him on 21st September,
2016 stating therein that, why externment
proceedings should not be initiated against
him. In the said proceedings, four offences
were mentioned. However, the petitioner was

¶27

¶28

744.17WP.odt

¶29

already acquitted of from the said offences
even before issuance of such notice. He
further submits that, while conducting the
proceedings by respondent no.3, there is no
compliance of mandate of provisions of
Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra
Police Act, 1951. He further submits that,

¶30

the petitioner was externed from Nanded,
Latur, Hingoli and Parbhani districts by
respondent no.3, however, the offences from

¶31

which he was already acquitted, were
registered with Police Station, Dharmabad. He
submits that, the appellate authority relied

¶32

upon Crime No. 438 of 2014 registered with
Police Station, Dharmabad under section 107
of the Code of Criminal Procedure dated 9th

¶33

October, 2016, though the said crime is not

¶34

mentioned in the show-cause notice. He
submits that, though the appellate authority

¶35

partially modified the order passed by
respondent no.3 and made it enforceable

¶36

744.17WP.odt

¶37

¶38

restricting to Nanded district only,
nevertheless, the other legal aspects, as
agitated by the petitioner, have not been
considered by the said authority. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed

¶39

into service the exposition of law in the

¶40

cases of Mahesh Bajrang Dalvi V/s The State

¶41

of Maharashtra1, Balaji S/o Ganpati Chame V/s
The State of Maharashtra and others2 and
Sopan Satappa Kore V/s The State of

¶42

Maharashtra and others3, and submits that the
Petition may be allowed.

¶43

4.On the other hand, the learned

¶44

A.P.P. appearing for respondent/State,

¶45

relying upon the reasons assigned by
respondent nos.3 and 4 in the impugned
orders, submits that, the authorities have

¶46

adhered to the proper procedure and have
passed the appropriate orders.

¶47

1 2017 All MR (Cri) 777

¶48

2 2017 All MR (Cri)719

¶49

3 2017 All MR (Cri) 764

¶50

¶51

744.17WP.odt

¶52

5.Wehavecarefullyconsidered

¶53

submissions of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, and the learned APP
appearing for the respondent – State. With
their able assistance, we have carefully
perused the grounds taken in the petition,
annexures thereto and also the original
record maintained by the office of Respondent
No.3, and the reasons assigned by respondent
nos.3 and 4 in the impugned orders.

¶54

6.The contention of the learned

¶55

counsel appearing for the petitioner that,
the petitioner was acquitted of from four
offences even prior to issuance of the show-
cause notice by the respondents deserves

¶56

acceptance, in as much as, there is no
discussion in the impugned orders passed by
respondent nos.3 and 4 about the contention
of the petitioner that, he was acquitted from
all those offences mentioned in the show-

¶57

¶58

744.17WP.odt

¶59

cause notice even prior to issuance of the
said notice, and therefore, no reliance can
be placed on said offences. In the show-cause
notice as well as in the impugned order
passed by respondent no.3, Crime Nos.77/2013,
80/2014 06/2014 and 93/2014 are shown pending
for trial before the Court.

¶60

7.Upon careful perusal of contents of

¶61

the show-cause notice dated 19.12.2016 issued

¶62

by the Respondent No.2, it is nowhere
mentioned that, the witnesses are not willing

¶63

to come forward to give evidence in public

¶64

against the petitioner by reason of
apprehension on their part as regards the
safety of their person or property. It is
true that, it is not expected from the

¶65

authority that the names of such witnesses or

¶66

date of such incident or other material

¶67

particulars should be mentioned in the show
cause notice. However, the Supreme Court in

¶68

¶69

744.17WP.odt

¶70

the case of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar

¶71

Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra⁴ , held that, proposed externee is entitled, before an order of externment is passed under Section 56, to know the material allegations against him and general nature of those allegations.

¶72

8.At this juncture, it would be apt to

¶73

make reference to the provisions of Section
56(1)(a)(b) of the Act of 1951, which reads
thus:

¶74

56.Removal of persons about to commit offence

¶75

(1) ....

¶76

(a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or

¶77

(b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that

4 AIR 1973 SC 630

744.17WP.odt

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 Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, or

¶82

[Underlines are added]

¶83

9.Upon careful perusal of the

¶84

aforesaid provisions, an order of externment

¶85

can be passed against a person whose
movements or acts are causing or calculated

¶86

to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or
property as provided in clause (a). The order

¶87

of externment can also be passed against a

¶88

744.17WP.odt

¶89

¶90

person if there are reasonable grounds for
believing that such a person is engaged or is
about to be engaged in the commission of an
offence involving force or violence as
provided in clause (b). An order of
externment can also be passed against a
person if that person is engaged or about to

¶91

be engaged in the commission of an offence
punishable under Chapter XII, or Chapter XVI,
or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. But
in addition to the above, the concerned
Officer, who is dealing with externment
proceedings, should be of opinion that the
witnesses are not willing to come forward to
give evidence in public against such person
by reason of apprehension on their part as
regards the safety of their person or
property.

¶92

Keeping in view the above legal
position, it was incumbent upon respondent
no.3, who dealt with an externment

¶93

744.17WP.odt

¶94

¶95

proceedings, to arrive at the opinion that
the witnesses are not willing to come forward
to give evidence in public against such
person by reason of apprehension on their
part as regards the safety of their person or
property.

¶96

10. Upon careful perusal of the

¶97

discussion by respondent no.3 in the impugned
order, it appears that, there is no reference
of recording in camera statements of the
witnesses. The Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court [at Principal seat] in the case of

¶98

Yeshwant Damodar Patil Vs. Hemant Karkar, Dy.
Commissioner of Police & another5had

¶99

occasion to consider the scope of provisions
of Section 56 [1] [a] and [b] of the Bombay
Police Act. It would be gainful to reproduce
herein below para 3 of the said judgment:

¶100

3. Section 56 (i) of the

¶101

5 1989 (3) Bom.C.R. 240

¶102

744.17WP.odt

¶103

¶104

Bombay Police Act visualises three situations in which the order of externment could be passed by the designated officer. We will, however, ignore, for the purpose of the disposal of this petition the third type of situation and only analyse the two situations which are covered by Clauses (a) and (b) of section 56 (i) of the Act. An order of externment can be passed against a person whose movements or acts are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. That is what is provided in clause (a). The order of externment can also be passed against a person if there are reasonable grounds for believing that such a person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence. It is so provided in the first part of clause (b)

¶105

¶106

744.17WP.odt

¶107

of section 56 (i) of the Act. An order of externment can also be passed against a person if that person is engaged or about to be engaged in the commission of an offence punishable under Chapter XII, of Chapter XVI, or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. This is so provided in the latter part of clause (b) of section 56 (i) of the Act. But it is not enough that these conditions alone are satisfied. In addition to this the designated officer should be of the opinion that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. [Underlines added]

¶108

11.It appears that, the authorities
have not made discussion in the impugned
orders showing live link and proximity in

¶109

744.17WP.odt

¶110

¶111

between the initiation of externment

¶112

proceedings by respondent nos.2 and 3, and
the offences from which the petitioner stands

¶113

already acquitted even prior to the issuance
of the show-cause notice. Further though all
the offences mentioned in the show-cause

¶114

notice and also in the impugned order passed

¶115

by respondent no.3 are registered at
Dharmabad Police Station, Dist. Nanded, the
petitioner was externed by respondent no.3
from Latur, Hingoli and Parbhani districts,
without assigning any reasons why his
externment was necessary for the abovesaid
districts.

¶116

12.Though the Appellate Authority i.e.
respondentno.4hasrestrictedthe

¶117

implementation and operation of the order of
externment passed by respondent no.3 from the
boundaries of Nanded District, nevertheless

¶118

the Appellate Authority did not consider the

¶119

744.17WP.odt

¶120

¶121

procedural irregularities and illegalities
committed by respondent no.3 while passing
the impugned order, and also by respondent
no.2 while initiating the proposal for
externment of the petitioner from four
Districts.

¶122

15.In that view of the matter, we are
of the considered view that, the impugned
orders passed by respondent nos.3 and 4
cannot legally sustain, hence both the orders
are quashed and set aside. Rule is made
absolute on above terms. The petition stands
disposed of accordingly. No order as to
costs.

¶123

[S.M.GAVHANE] [S.S.SHINDE] JUDGE JUDGE

¶124

SAG

Nagesh Gangadhar Vibhute v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagesh Gangadhar Vibhute v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hausaji S/O. Bhaurao Jagdambe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat S/O. Vishwanath Devkar Vs Jaishree S/O. Rajabhau Devkar and Anr.

Jaishree Rajabhau Devkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish S/O. Ram Sarwade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dnyaneshwar Madhav Malve Vs the Divisional Commissioner and Others

Vijay S/O. Basweshwar Lamture and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.