9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (5) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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:- No. Ext. 3/1 of 1955 Office of the S.D.P.O. Bhiwandi, Bhiwandi, dated 21-1-1955. (I) I, Shri C. V. Bapat, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sub-Divisional office Bhiwandi Division, District Thana, do hereby issue a notice to you, Shri Bhagu Dubai Bhandari alias Bhagwanbhai Dulla Bhai Jadhav of Bhilad District Thana, that it is proposed that you should be removed outside the District of Thana and you should not enter or return to the said district for a period of two years from the date of the order to be made under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 for the following reasons: (II) Evidence is forthcoming that your following activities have caused and are calculated to cause alarm, danger and harm to person and property in Bhilad and the surrounding areas:- (III) You have been dealing in smuggled foreign liquor and maintained a veil of secrecy by criminal intimidation and physical violence to the villag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pear before the said police officer on the 27th January 1955 in order to enable the former to offer such explanation and examine such witnesses as he may be advised. In pursuance of that notice the petitioner appeared, before the police officer aforesaid and the hearing of his case took place on different dates. The petitioner claims to have examined seven "respectable persons" to testify on his behalf. Ultimately on the 11th July 1955 an order was passed by the District Magistrate of Thana externing the petitioner outside the Thana District. The order of externment is Ex. D to the petition and contains the recitals that after considering the evidence before him and the explanation offered by the petitioner the District Magistrate of Thana (the 1st respondent), was satisfied that the petitioner "engages in giving threats and assaulting Central Excise and Customs Officials men and residents of Bhilad and surrounding villages and indulges in illicit traffic of foreign liquor from Daman" and that in his opinion "witnessess are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the said Shri Bhagubhai Dullabhbhai Bhandari alias Bhagwanbhai Dullabhbh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he witnesses did not appear and depose against 'him for fear of the petitioner. In Petition No. 440 of 1955, Kunwar Rameshwar Singh is the petitioner and the respondents are- 1. Shri W. K. Patil, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch (I) C.I.D., Greater Bombay, 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, and 3. The State of Bombay. The petitioner is a citizen of India and claims to be a "social worker" connected with several social organisations. He alleges that his main social activity has been the improvement of the lot of prostitutes and singing girls in certain quarters'of Bombay On the 2nd November, 1954 the petitioner was served with a notice under section 56 read with section 59 of the Act (Ex. A to the petition) setting out the allegations against him and calling upon him to explain those matters. In pursuance of the said notice the petitioner appeared before the Superintendent of Police to show cause against the proposed action against him. Ultimately on the 4th January, 1955 the Commissioner of Police, the second respondent, passed an order to the effect that the petitioner should remove himself from the limits of Greater Bombay within seven days. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and demand money from them under threats of assault and of preventing them from visiting the said locality; (vii) That he has committed several acts of the nature mentioned above. II. That witnesses to the above incidents are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against him as they apprehend that they will be assaulted by him and/or by his associates if they do so. And whereas I have heard the said person and considered the explanation tendered by him and also the evidence given by the witnesses produced by him and have heard his counsel. And whereas after considering all the evidence and explanation detailed above, I am satisfied that: The Movements and acts of Kunwar Rameshwar Singh since October, 1953, are causing alarm and harm to the persons residing in carrying on business in or Visitin the locality known as Falkland Road, Foras Road Sukhalaji Street, Bapty Road, Kamathipura and the areas adjoining thereto in Greater Bombay and that he indulges in activities mentioned above. And whereas in my opinion witnesses are unwilling to come forward to give evidence in public against the said person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Presidency Magistrate, Fourth Court, at Girgaum, Bombay, on the 6th April 1955, the petitioner entered Greater Bombay to attend court but he was arrested under the Act for committing a breach of the externment order. He was prosecuted before the Presidency Magistrate, Sixth Court at Mazgaon, Bombay, for an offence under section 142 of the Act. He was convicted by the Magistrate and sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment by a judgment dated the 8th September 1955. The Magistrate's judgment is Exhibit to the petition. The learned Magistrate overruled the petitioner's contention that the order of externment passed against him was illegal, relying chiefly upon the judgments of the High Court referred to above, upholding the constitutionality of that order. As regards his defence that he had entered Greater Bombay in obedience to the warrant issued against him, the learned Magistrate observed that as a matter of fact, according to the statement of the petitioner's counsel before him he had taken that step "to -test the validity of the order". Secondly, the learned Magistrate has rightly pointed out that the petitioner should have obtained the previous permissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he was attached to S. S. Talwar in Bombay, be was "released from service". In 1947 he joined the B. B. & C. 1. -Railway as a clerk and was removed from his post in July 1947 for having made baseless allegations against his superior officer. In 1949 he made an attempt to enter the police force of Greater Bombay, but that failed as he was found to be unreliable. Subsequently, in August 1950 he joined the State Transport Department as a clerk but had again to be removed from that post in April 1951. Later on, the petitioner obtained accommodation in Bombay on a false representation that he was a refugee from Pakistan. He was prosecuted and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of ₹ 30 or three months rigorous imprisonment in default. His appeal from that order of conviction and sentence to the High Court of Bombay was dismissed by a Division Bench in September 1954. On a similar false representation he had obtained from the Custodian of Evacuee Property two shops in Bombay. Necessary proceedings had to be taken against him for evicting him from those shops. After his removal from Government jobs as aforesaid, the petitioner "came forward" as a social worker d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the District Magistrate, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf (a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that 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 Chapter 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 parts as regards the safety of their person or property, or (c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant, the said officer may, by an order in writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit., direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or the, outbreak or spread of such disease or to remove himself outside the area Within the local limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had laid down in the case of Gurbachan Singh v. State of Bombay([1952] S.C.R. 787) as follows:- "The law is certainly an extraordinary, one and has been made only to meet those exceptional cases where no witnesses for fear of violence to their person or property are willing to depose publicly against certain bad characters whose presence-in certain areas constitutes a menace to the safety of the public residing therein". The words "no witnesses" have been emphasized as supporting the argument that unless all the witnesses before the police are unwilling to give evidence in open court the provisions of section 56 cannot be taken recourse to. In our opinion, it is reading too much into the observations of this Court quoted above, made by Mukherjea, J. (as he then was). The learned Judge did not mean to lay down, and we do not understand him as having laid down, that unless each and every witness is unwilling to give evidence in open court, the provisions of section 56 are not available to the police. The words of section 56 quoted above do not lend themselves to that extreme contention. If such an extreme interpretation were to be put on that part of section 56 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tionality of those very provisions in this case. It is enough to point out that no attempt was made in this Court to ;bake the authority of that decision. Shri Dadachanji, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner in this case faintly suggested that the petitioner had been proceeded against under the penal section of the Act notwithstanding the fact that he had entered Greater Bombay in order to look after the case pending against him in which a warrant of arrest had been issued. But that is a closed chapter so far as the courts including this Court also are concerned inasmuch as his conviction stands conformed as a result of the refusal of this Court to grant him -special leave to appeal from the, judgment of the Bombay High Court. He further contended that his conviction for his' having entered Greater Bombay itself is an indication of the unreasonableness of the restriction and of the law under which the order of externment had been passed against him. But if the petitioner had only taken the course indicated by the law, namely, of obtaining the previous permission of the prescribed authority, he could have avoided the prosecution and the conviction. It must therefore be held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
