LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR versus SALEM HASAN KHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR
v.
SALEM HASAN KHAN
MARCH 9, 1989
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA ANDS. RATNAVEL
PANDIAN, JJ.)
Bombay Police Act: Sections 56 and 60--Externment proceed-
ings-Not necessary for State Government to give reasons while making
externment order or disposing of an appeal in respect of such order-
Reasoned order would cause harassment and frustrate purpose of
externment proceedings.
An externment order was passed against the respondent under
section 56 of the Bombay Police Act on the ground that he was found to
be frequently engaged in illegal business of narcotics and was also
involved in several cases of riot and criminal intimidation. The res-
pondent filed an appeal under section 60 of the Act and while the appeal
was pending moved the High Court with a writ application. The State
Government dismissed the appeal by a short order.
Before the High Court it was urged that since the State Govern-
ment omitted to give reasons in support of the order of dismissal of the
appeal, the same was vitiated in Law. The High Court agreed with the
petitioner and allowed the writ application quasing the appellate order
as well the initial externment order.
Allowing the appeal by the State to the extent of correcting the
error oflaw only, it was,
HELD: (I) The High Court was in error in quashing the order of
externment as confirmed by the State Government in appeal, on the
ground that the State Government omitted to give reasons.
(2) A full and complete disclosure of particulars, as is requisite in
an open prosecution, will frustrate the very purpose of an externment
proceeding. There is a brand of lawless elements in society which it is
impossible to bring to book by established methods 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
reprisal witnesses are unwilling to depose in public. [972C-E, GI
970
[
1
.,
t
~>
1
"'
,..
I "
;.
... -(
).-·
'Ii
""."-
;
. <
-.,\
y
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. S.H. KHAN [SHARMA, J.]
971
(3) If the authorities were to discuss the evidence in the case, it
would he easy to fix the identity of the witnesses who were unwilling to
depose in public against the proposed externee. A reasoned order con·
taining a discussion would probably spark off another round of harass-
ment. "[972G I
A
Pandarinath Sridhar Rangnekar v. Deputy Commissioner of B
Police; [ 1973 I 3 SCR 63, followed.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 205 of 1989 .
From the judgment and Order dated 24.2.1987 of the Bombay c
High Court in Crl. W.P.No. 67 of 1986.
A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellant .
..
Syed Ali Ahmad, Tanweer Ahmad, Mohan Pandey and Ms. J.
Ahmed for the Respondent ..
D
.-1
.. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by·
SHARMA, J. 1. Special leave granted.
.
2. The respondent was served with an extemment order passed
E
under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act {hereinafter referred to as
the Act) directing him to leave the districts of Aurangabad and Jalna
for a period of two years. The order stated that from 11.5.1980 the
respondent was found to be frequently engaged in illegal business of
narcotics and since he was involved in several cases of riot and criminal
intimidation causing physical hurts to tlie residents of the locality on
F
account of his suspicion. that they were supplying information to the
police about his illegal activities, witnesses were not willing to come
forward and depose against him. He filed an appeal under Section 60
of the Act and while the appeal was pending. he moved the Bombay
High Court with a writ application under Article 226 of the Consti·
~ution. During the pendency of the writ application the State Govern·
G
ment. dismissed, the respondent's appeal: by a ~hort order. The writ
petitioner thereafter challenged the appellate order also in the pendirig
writ case.
3. At the time of the final hearing of the writ case before the
High Court, four points were raised on behalf of the petitioner. As the
H
;;,
'
~
..•
972
'SUPREME COURT REPORTS
{1989] 1 S.C.R.
A first point, it was urged that since the State Government omitted to
~
give reasons in support of the order of dismissal of the appeal, the
same was vitiated in law. The High Court agreed ·with the petitioner
and allowed the writ application quashing the appellate order as well
as the initiaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.