TMI Blog1968 (4) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Criminal Application No. 8 of 1965. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic Branch, Ahmedabad City, served a notice, dated August 13, 1964. on the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1965, under S. 59 with s. 56, of the Act, in the following terms : Under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act (Bombay XXII of 1951) you are hereby informed that the following allegations are made against you in a proceeding under Section 56 of the said Act, and it is proposed that you should be removed outside the District of Ahmedabad City and the contiguous District of Ahmedabad Rural, Kaira and Mehsana and you should not enter or return to the said Districts for a period of two years from the date of order proposed to be passed against you under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. You are also informed that I have been empowered by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Ahmedabad City under his No. 40 P.C.B. dated 12/8/1964 to proceed according to Section 59(1) of the said Act. In order to give you an opportunity of tendering your explanation regarding the said allegations, I have appointed 11.00 hours on 21-8-1964 to receive your explanation and to hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty Commissioner passed an order, directing the said Mehboob Khan Usman Khan to remove himself, with two days of the service of the order, outside the district of Ahmedabad City and the contiguous Districts of Ahmedabad Rural, Kaira and Mehsana. The order of externment contains recitals that, after considering the evidence 'before him, and the explanation, furnished by the respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Police is satisfied that the respondent is a desperate and dangerous man, and is engaged in the commission of acts involving force or violence, and acts punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII, of the Indian Penal Code, within the localities known as Rantiawadi, Halimkhadki and round about areas, and that there are reliable materials to prove the allegations, contained in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3), of the said order. Those allegations, it may be stated, are identical with the three offences, referred to, in the notice, dated August 13, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner further states that, in his opinion the witnesses to the above incidents are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against him by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the notice, dated August 13, 1964. He further examined witnesses, in his defence. Therefore, according to the Deputy Commissioner, the respondent had reasonable opportunity of tendering his explanation, regarding the matters, mentioned in the notice. It is further stated that the witnesses, examined by the respondent, claimed no knowledge of the criminal activities, mentioned in the notice, and that the entire material, consisting of the evidence of the victims, who had suffered at the hands of the respondent, which were before the officer, was considered, and the officer was also satisfied that the respondent was indulging in offences, punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII, of the Indian Penal Code. The officer was further satisfied that those persons were not willing to depose against him, in public, by reason of apprehension, on their part, as regards the safety of, their person and property. The Deputy Commissioner has further stated that, from the record and information available with him, the respondent was a wellknown bully, terrorizing law-abiding citizens, in the areas, mentioned in the notice, and that it was, after following the procedure, indicated in s. 59, that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have visited and consumed eatables, without payment, and beaten persons in charge of their management, when legal dues were demanded from him. In this view, the learned Judges, ultimately, held that ground No. 3 of the notice dated August 13, 1964, was vague, as it could not have afforded a reasonable oppertunity to the respondent herein, of offering his explanation, or- leading evidence, in his defence. Inasmuch as this ground also, had taken into account, by the Deputy Commissioner, for passing the order of externment, and as this ground was held to be vague, the learned Judges ultimately quashed the notice, issued under s. 59, dated August 13, 1964, as well as the order of externment, dated November 9, 1964, passed against the respondent. This order, is the subject of attack, by the State of Gujarat, in Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1965. Similarly, a notice, dated-July 28, 1964, under s. 59 of the Act, was served on Ahmed Noor Mohammad, respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 1965, by the Deputy Commissioner, Ahmedabad City, stating that the said officer proposed to extern the respondent, for a period of two years, under s. 56 of the Act. In the allegations, contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above incidents, were not willing to come forward to give evidence, the order of externment was passed. The respondent challenged this order of externment, passed against him, as well as the notice, issued unders. 59, before the Gujarat High Court, in Special Criminal Application No. 8 of 1965, under Arts. 226 and 227, of the Constitution. Here again, the stand, taken by the respondent, was that the allegations, contained in the notice issued under s. 59, were very vague and indefinite and inconclusive and, as such, it could not be said that he was given a reasonable opportunity, to offer his explanation, as contemplated under the said section. Certain other objections, regarding the legality of the order, were also raised. In the counter-affidavit, filed by the Deputy Commissioner, it is stated that the order, dated February 2, 1965, was passed by him, under s. 56 of the Act, after a careful consideration, of all materials placed before him, including the written statement and the defence evidence, adduced by the respondent. It was further stated that the notice, issued under s. 59, was in strict conformity with the provisions of that section, and the respondent had a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en to reject the applications, filed by the respondents, on the ground that they had not exhausted their remedy of appeal, under s. 60, of the Act. That leaves us with the more important question, arising for consideration, viz., as to whether a proper interpretation has been placed, under s. 59 of the Act, by the High Court. Chapter V of the Act deals with special measures for maintenance of Public Order and Safety of the State. Sections 55 to 63AA, occur in the said Chapter, under the second sub- heading 'Dispersal of gangs and Removal 'of persons convicted of certain offences'. Section 56 relates to removal of persons about to commit offence. Under s. 58, a direction, made under ss. 55, 56 or 57, shall, in no case, exceed a period of two years from the date on which it was made. Section 59 provides for hearing to be given, before an order under ss. 55, 56 or 57, is passed. We may pause here for a moment and state that both the respondents, in response to the notice, issued under this section, had filed written statements and also adduced evidence. In particular, the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 1965, was also represented by an advocate, in those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he scheme of s. 59 is dealt with at p. 521, and the criticism, levelled against that section, is rejected. It is further emphasized, at p. 522, that the proceedings, contemplated by s. 57, or for the matter of that, sections 55 or 56, are not prosecutions for offences or judicial proceedings, though the officer or authority, charged with the duty aforesaid, has to examine the information, laid before him, by the police, and that the police force is charged with the duty, not only of detection of offences and of bringing offenders to justice, but also of preventing the commission of offences, by persons with previous records of conviction, or with criminal propensities. In particular, a contention appears to have been raised that as only general nature of the material allegations have to be given in the notice, issued under s. 59, and, as it did not further provide for particulars to be supplied to such a person, it would be very difficult for a party to urge, in appeal before the State Government under s. 60, that there was no material, before the authority concerned, upon which it could have based its order. This objection was repelled by this Court, at p. 524, as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng s. 59 of the Act. But, we are not adverting to those decisions, in view of the decisions of this Court, referred to above. In the instant case, the learned Judges of the Gujarat High Court, accept the position that under s. 59, of the Act, the notice should inform the person, in writing, of the general nature of the material allegations, against him, and it need not contain particulars. But they have held that the allegations, regarding the two respondents, consuming eatables, from places of public entertainment, without payment, and beating persons, when legal dues were demanded, contained in the two notices, are vague. The reasoning of the learned Judges that the said allegations should have contained all the particular places of public entertainment, or what particular establishment the respondents were supposed to have visited, is not warranted, by the provisions of s. 59. In fact, if we may say so, with respect, there is a slight inconsistency in the reasoning of the learned Judges, because, in the later part of the judgment they say that a party is not entitled to be supplied with particulars of the allegations made against him. We are therefore. not inclined to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
