LexBHAGUBHAI. DULLABHABHAI BHANDARI versus THE DISTRLCT MAGISTRATE, THANA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 533 BHAGUBHAI. DULLABHABHAI BHANDARI v. THE DISTRlCT MAGISTRATE, TRANA & OTHERS (with connected petition) [S. R~ DAS c. J., JAGANNADHADAS, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B. P. SINHA and JAFER IMAM JJ.] Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bombay Act XXII of 1951), s. 56- 0onstitutional validity-Order of externment-Restrictions- Reasonableness-" Witness", scope of the word in the section-Whether not applicable to members of the police force or customs department- Oonstitution of India, Art. 19. Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, is not unconstitu· tional and does not contravene the provisions of Art. 19 of the Constitution. Gurbachan Singh v. State of Bombay ( [1952) S.C.R. 737), followed. In order to attract the operation of the section the Officer con· earned _should be satisfied that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public, but it is not necessary to show that all the witnesses a.re unwilling to give evidence. The terms of the section do not justify any restricted meaning being given to the word "witnesses" and it is applicable to memberf! of the police force and employees and officers of the Customs Department also. Gurbachan Singh v. State of Bombay ( [1952] S.C.R. 737), explained. Under the provisions of s. 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, an order of externment was passed against the petitioner by whi'Ch he was directed to remove himself outside the limits of Greater Bombay and not to enter the said area for a. period of two yea.rs without the prescribed permission; and subsequently he entered Greater Bombay in order to" attend Court in a case pending a.go.inst him in which a warrant of arrest ha.d been issued. He wa.s convicted for committing the breach of the externment order and he contended that his ccnviction wa.s in itself a.n indication of the unreasonable· ness of the restriction. Held, that the restrictions cannot be said to be unreasonable as the petitioner could have a.voided the prosecution a.nu the convic: ti on by obtaining the previous permission of the prescribed authority. Per JAGANNADHADAS J.-If the matter were res integra I should have felt difficulty in upholding the validity of s. 56(b) of 1956 Ma;vB 1956 BhagrWhai Dullabhabhai Bhandari v. The District 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1956] the Bombay Police Act, 1951, in so far as it did not demarcate the application thereof ta the more serious classes of offences falling within. the specified Chapters. I should also have felt difficulty in holding a provision ta be reasonable which clothes the executive officers with an authority to extern a person for so long a. period as two years. Magistrate, Thana ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 439 & and others 440 of 1955. Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. H.J. Umrigar and R. A. Govind, for the peti- tioner in. Petition No. 439 of 1955. J. B. Dadachanji, for the petitioner in Petition No. 440 of 1955. M. G. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, B. Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents. 1956. May 8. The judgment of S. R. Das C. J. and Venkatarama Ayyar, B. P. Sinha and Jafer Imam JJ. was delivered by Sinha J. Jagannadha- das J. delivered a separate judgment. SINHA J.-These petitions under article 32 of the Constitution challenge the constitutionality of some of the provisions of the Bombay Police Act, XXII of 1951 (which hereinafter will be referred to as "The Act"), with special reference to section 56, as also of the orders passed against them externing them under that section of the Act. · In Petition No. 439 of 1955 Babubhai Dullabhbhai Bhandari is the petitioner and the District Magistrate of Thana, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bhivandi Division, Bhiwandi, District Thana, and the State of Bombay are respondents 1, 2 and 3. The petitioner is a citi- zen of India and carries on trade in grass at Bhilad, a railway station on the Western Railway. On 21st January 1955 the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bhiwandi Division, served a notice under section 56 of the Act in the following terms:- S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 535 " No. Ext. 3/1 of 1955 Office of the S.D.P.O. Bhiwandi, 1956 Bhagubhai Bhiwandi, dated 21-1-1955. Dullabhabhai (I) I, Shri C. V. Bapat, Deputy Superintendent Bhanda.-i , of Police and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.