LexGAZI SADUDDIN, versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
G~ZI SADUDDIN,
v.
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
AUGUST 25, 2003
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.]
Bombay Police Act, 1951-Section 56 ·(/)(bb)(J)-Order of
externment-Jnterference with-When called for-Held: When satisfaction
C recorded by the authority passing externment order is based on no evidence,
misreading of evidence or which a reasonable person could npt form or
person concerned was not given due opportunity, interference is tailed for-
On facts, satisfaction recorded based on material on record, thus, courts
\could not inte1fere with the order-Order of externment upheld.
D
Appellant was issued notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act,
1951. It was alleged that three criminal proceedings were registered against
him; that he was creating disharmony among the communities; that he had
links with SIMI; that he got himself elected as a Corporator on the basis of
false caste certificate obtained by him; and that he.had extorted money.
Appellant filed a reply denying the allegations. Deputy Commissioner of Police
E passed an order of externment under Section 56(l)(a),(b) and (bb) of the Act
against the appellant which was confirmed. High Court on perusal of the
original documents and statements of the witnesses recorded by the police
in-camera holding that the activities of the appellant were prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order in the locality, upheld the order of externment
F
G
H
based on Section 56(l)(bbXl) of the Act. However, it did not find any substance
in the allegations pertaining to clauses (a) and (b) of Section 56(1) of the Act.*
Hence the present appeal. Appellant contended that the notice having not been
upheld under clauses (a) and (b) the ·same deserves to be struck down as a
whole being excessive.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Primarily the satisfaction has to be of the authority passing
the order of externment under the Bombay Police Act, 1951. If the satisfaction
recorded by the authority is objective and is based on material on record then
the courts would not interfere with the order passed by the authority only
966
GAZ! SADUDDIN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BHAN, J.)
967
because another view possibly can be taken. Such satisfaction of the authority A
can be interfered with only if the satisfaction recorded is either
demonstratively perverse based on no evidence, misreading of evidence or
which a reasonable person could not form or that the person concerned was
not given due opportunity resulting in prejudicing his rights under the Act.
[972-F-HI B
2. In the instant case, there was no lapse in following the procedure
laid down under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and the Rulel" in passing the
order of externment. Procedure laid dol"n under the Act culminating in
passing of the order of externment was duly followed. Furtht:r the perusal of
the statements made by the witnesses spells out that the appellant had C
threatened the witnesses with dire consequence for not participating in the
demonstration and every programme organized by him, he was spreading
communal feelings amongst the residents of the locality, and was harassing
the public in general and causing disturbance to the public tranquility and
security of the locality. Thus, a case was made out for the externment of the
appellant under Section 56(1)(bb)(l) of the Act. (972-F; 973-E, F)
D
3. Section 56(1) clearly spells out that there are four main clauses on
the satisfaction of which an order of externment can be passed. In the instant
case, the notice contained allegations pertaining to clauses (a), (b) and (bb).
Non-sustainment of the notice pertaining to allegations regarding clauses
(a) and (b) does not mean that notice under clause (bb) cannot be sustained if E
there is evidence present to sustain the allegations made regarding clause
(bb) of Section of56(1) of the Act. (972-8-D)
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of
2003.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.2003 of the Bombay High
Court in Crl. W.P. No. 135 of2002.
Subrat Birla and S.C. Birla for the Appellant.
F
Kanwal Nain and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondents. G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAN, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High H
968
SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 135 of2002 wherein the High
Court .has confirmedExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.