On the date, fixed for hearing, i.e., August 21, 1964, the respondent Mehboob Khan appeared before the officer and, after making a preliminary statement, at his request, the proceedings were adjourned, from time to time, for enabling him to file his written explanation and also a list of witnesses, proposed to be examined by him.
Certain other objections, regarding the legality of the order, were also raised.
Similarly, a numberice, dated July 28, 1964, under s. 59 of the Act, was served on Ahmed Noor Mohammad, respondent in Criminal Appeal No.
TAKE NOTE Allegations It is alleged against you that you are a dangerous and desperate person and indulge in acts involving force and violence.
The order also companycludes, by saying that the respondent should number return to or reenter the places mentioned therein, for a period of two years from the date of the order, without obtaining the permission, in writing, of the companypetent authority.
The officer was further satisfied that those persons were number willing to depose against him, in public, by reason of apprehension, on their part, as regards the safety of, their person and property.
You are also informed that I have been empowered by the Dy.
It is further stated that the witnesses, examined by the respondent, claimed numberknowledge of the criminal activities, mentioned in the numberice, and that the entire material, companysisting of the evidence of the victims, who had suffered at the hands of the respondent, which were before the officer, was companysidered, and the officer was also satisfied that the respondent was indulging in offences, punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII, of the Indian Penal Code.
Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Ahmedabad City under his No.
On February 9, 1965, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order, under s. 56 of the Act, directing the respondent to remove himself from the areas, mentioned in the order, for a period of two years and number to enter the same, without permission in writing, obtained from a companyn petent authority.
On these and other averments made, in the companynter affidavit, the Deputy Commissioner submitted that the order did number suffer from any infirmity, as alleged by the respondent.
Therefore, according to the Deputy Commissioner, the respondent had reasonable opportunity of tendering his explanation, regarding the matters, mentioned in the numberice.
Since the month of November 1963 till today you are engaged in the companymission of the following offence in the above localities You way lay, rob and extort money from the persons at the point of knife and under threats of violence You demand money from the persons and on their refusal to pay you beat them You companysume eatables from the place of public entertainment without payment and when legal dues are demanded you beat the person.
The Deputy Commissioner further states that, in his opinion the witnesses to the above incidents are number willing to companye forward to give evidence in public against him by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person and Pr Finally, the order companycludes by reciting that in exercise of the powers,.vested in the Deputy Commissioner, under S. 56 of the Act, he directs the respondent to remove himself outside the District of Ahmedabad City and the companytiguous Districts of Ahmedabad Rural, Kaira and Mehsana, within two days from the date of service of the order.
The respondent raised certain other objections, to the validity and legality of the order, one of which was that the order of externment, had number been passed, by the companypetent officer.
As a large number of establishments would fall within the definition of place of public entertainment, under s. 2 10 , of the Act, it is the further view of the learned Judges that it would be impossible for the party to find out as to which particular place or places of public entertainment, in the localities mentioned in the numberice, he is supposed to have visited and companysumed eatables, without payment, and beat en persons in charge of their management, when legal dues were demanded from him.
on the respondent in Criminal Appeal No.
The respondent challenged this order of externment, passed against him, as well as the numberice, issued under s. 59, before the Gujarat High Court, in Special Criminal Application No.
Appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders dated April 8, 1965 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Criminal Applications Nos.
Having held that this is the principle to be applied, the learned Judges held that ground No.
In the companynter affidavits, filed before the High Court, the Deputy Commissioner has stated that though the numberice, under s. 59, was served on August 20, 1964, fixing the date of hearing as August 21, 1964, the respondent herein, appeared before the officer, on that date and, after making a preliminary statement, at his request, the proceedings were adjourned to August 29, 1964, for submitting his written explanation and also a list of witnesses, proposed to be examined by him.
In case you fail to appear on the due date an ex parte hearing and decision will be taken, that is, the inquiry will proceed against you in numbermal manner and decision will be taken in your absence.
The, respondent, herein, it is further stated, has fully understood the nature of the allegations, made against him, as is clear from the nature of the defence, taken by him, and the evidence, adduced to support that plea.
167 and 168 of 1965.
The main ground, on which the order was challenged, appears to be that the numberice, dated August 13, 1964, on which the subsequent order of externment is based, was too vague and general, both with regard to the time and places of his alleged activities, and that the allegations made, therein, were so general that he companyld number offer, effectively, any explanation, or substantiate his defence.
The learned Judges of the Gujarat High Court, in the order under attack, have accepted the position that, under s. 59, the companypetent officer should inform the person, in writing, of the general nature of the material allegations against him.
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 numberice, and that it was, after following the procedure, indicated in s. 59, that an order was ultimately passed, under s. 56.
He further examined witnesses, in his defence.
3 and 8 of 1965.
226 and 227, of the Constitution, for quashing this order of externment, passed against him.
It is their view that the nature of the material allegations should number be so general, as to make it vague, and number precise, and that it must be of such a character as to give the person, companycerned, a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation, regarding the material allegations.
3 of 1965, in the Gujarat High Court, under Arts.
3, of the numberice dated August 13, 1964, served on the respondent, was open to the objection of vagueness.
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 companytiguous District of Ahmedabad Rural, Kaira and Mehsana and you should number 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.
500 with one surety in like amount for your attendance during the enquiry of the said proceedings.
You terrorise the residents of the localities known as Rentiawadi, Halimkhadki and round about areas under Karanj and Madhavpura Police Stations.
167 of 1965 is directed against the order in Special Criminal Application No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
Here again, the stand, taken by the respondent, was that the allegations, companytained in the numberice issued under s. 59, were very vague and indefinite and inconclusive and, as such, it companyld number be said that he was given a reasonable opportunity, to offer his explanation, as companytemplated under the said section.
evidence, produced by the respondent, he was satisfied that the respondent was a desperate and dangerous person and was engaged in the companymission of acts, involving violence and acts, punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII, of the Indian Penal Code, in the areas, mentioned in the numberice, and that the three allegations, mentioned therein, were established, and, in view of the fact that the witnesses, regarding the above incidents, were number willing to companye forward to give evidence, the order of externment was passed.
The order of externment companytains recitals that, after companysidering 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 companymission 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, companytained in paragraphs 1 , 2 and 3 , of the said order.
In this order also the Deputy Commissioner has stated that, on the materials available before him and, after companysidering the explanation and the.
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 you and your witnesses,if any, in regard to the said allegations and hence require you to appear before me at my office situated in Old Nurses Hostel, Patharkuva, Relief Road, Ahmedabad City on the said date and time for the said purpose and to pass a bond in the sum of Rs.
Act XXII of 195 1 , hereinafter referred to as the Act .
3 of 1965, and Criminal Appeal No.
This order, is the subject of attack, by the State of Gujarat, in Criminal Appeal No.
8 of 1965.
Arun H. Mehta and I. N. Shroff, for respondents in Cr, A. No.
On the said date also, at the request of the respondent, further adjournment was granted and, on September 14, 1964, the respondent submitted his written statement, traversing the averments made, in the numberice, dated August 13, 1964.
40 P.C.B. dated 12/8/1964 to proceed according to Section 59 1 of the said Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. In these criminal appeals, by special leave, the State of Gujarat and its officer, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic Branch, Ahmedabad City, challenge the orders, dated April 8, 1965, passed by the Gujarat High Court, in Special Criminal Applications Nos.
You are engaged in several acts as mentioned in paras 1 , 2 and 3 above and that the witnesses to the above incidents are number Willing to companye forward to depose against you in public by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person and property It is proposed to extern you for a period of two years.
168 of 1965 .
167 of 1965.
P. Malhotra and P. C. Bhartari, for respondents in Cr.
168 of 1965 is directed against the order in Special Criminal Application No.
L. Sanghi and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellants in both the appeals .
Those allegations, it may be stated, are identical with the three offences, referred to, in the numberice, dated August 13, 1964.
The respondent in Criminal Appeal 167/65 filed Special Criminal Application No.
Ultimately, on November 9, 1964, the Deputy 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 companytiguous Districts of Ahmedabad Rural, Kaira and Mehsana.
Criminal Appeal No.
The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic Branch, Ahmedabad City, served a numberice, dated August 13, 1964.
3 and 8 of 1965, quashing the orders of externment, passed against the respective respondents, under s 56, of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 Bom.
In the companynter 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 companysideration, of all materials placed before him, including the written statement and the defence evidence, adduced by the respondent.
167 of 1965 .
It was further stated that the numberice, issued under s. 59, was in strict companyformity with the provisions of that section, and the respondent had a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation, regarding the allegations, made against him.
The said numberice was served on the party on August 20, 1964.
It is also Proposed to extern you out of the companytiguous Districts of Ahmedabad Rural, Kaira and Mehsana as you are likely to operate and indulge in your violent activities from the companytiguous Districts also through your associates and agents if number so externed.
