LexPANDHARINATH SHRIDHAR RANGNEKAR versus DY. COMMR. OF POLICE, THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 63 PANDHARINATH SHRIDHAR RANGNEKAR v. DY. COMMR. OF POLICE, THE ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA December 11, 1972 (H. R. KHANNA AND Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] Bombay Police Act (22 of 1951)-Ss. 56, 59-Externment Or,ler- Duty to infonn "the general nature of the material allegations"-Full dis~ closure of particulars if necessary--!/ the externing authority and the State government should give reasoned order-Order of extern.ment if shou!d be restricted to area chosen for unla•~'ful activities. Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act provides that whenever it shall appear, in Greater Bomb&y, to the Commissioner (a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or are calculateJ to c&:.ise alarm, danger or harm to person or property or (b) that there >re reooonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of offence involving force or violence or an offence pun_ishable under Chapter 22, 16 and 17 of the Indian Penal Code, and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come fon\·ard tv give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension o:i their part as regards safety of their person or property, the said officer may by order in writing direct such person to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction or such area and any district or districts, or any pa.rt thereof contiguous thereto, within such time as the said officer may prescribe and not to enter or return to the said are::. from which be was directed to remove himself. Section 59(1) requires that before an order under s. 56 is passed against any person the officer shall inform that person in writing "of the general nature of the material allega- tions against him'' and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding those allegations. The appellant was served with ., notice under s. 56 of the Act. The allegations were that the appellant's acts and movements were causing alarm and danger to the residents of certain localities within the jurisdic· tion of Vile Parle Police Station, that he was given to assaulting the resi· dents of the localities either because they were suspected to be police informants or because thev failed to accede to the demands of money, that he had committed robberies in the particular localities, and that witnesses were not willing to come forward to depose against him in public. The appellant offered his explanation and examined his witnesses to refute the allegations. On a consideration of the explanation and the evidence tendered by the appellant an order was passed externing him from the limits of Greater Bombay and the District of Thana for a period of two ye~rs. :rhe order wa.s confirmed in appeal by the State government. A ~nt petition to the High Court was dismissed. In the appeal to this Court ti was contended ( i) the allegations that witnesses were not willing to come forward to depose against the appellant in public was falsified by !he very r.eco~d of _the present proceedings; (ii) the particulars contained 10 the notice tSsued under s. 59 of the Act were so vattue that the appel· !ant i;:ould not possibly meet the allegations made against him and thus he was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself; (iii) the extern- ing authority had the duty to pass 111 reasoned order or else the right of appeal would become illusory; and the State Government also ought to ha_ve given reasons in support of the order dismissing the appeal and its failure to do so showed non-application of mind; and (iv) the order of 64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1973] 3 S.C.R. externment imposed unreasonable restrictions on the personal liberty of the appellant in that, whereas his activities were· alleged to be restricted to an area. within the jurisdiction of the Vile Parle police station, the order of externment not only extended to the whole district of Greater Bombay but to the district of Thana also. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (I) In order to attract the operation of section 56 of the Act the officer concerned has to satisfy himself that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public. But it is not neces .. sary that all the witnesses must be found unwilling to give e\idence. The circum5tance, therefore, that in two criminal cases certain witnesses came forward to depose against the appellant cannot f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.