Occupation Bullock cart owner.
336 of 1949 u s 143, 147, 149, 225, 225 B, 332, I.P.C. wherein you along with one Shri Vithal Baloo and others companymitted rioting, assaulted a public servant, viz.
In April 1948 the petitioners brother had charged him and eight others with having thrown sodawater bottles and used lathis.
On seeing the police van, they started running away and were chased and arrested by the police force.
It is further stated in the affidavit that in the previous case in which the petitioner had been companyvicted be bad been found guilty along with his brother Rajaram of having caused the death of a person who had given evidence against them in a previous trial.
On arrest the petitioner and his other associates were found carrying clasp knives.
The petitioner was placed on his trial for offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act and the Bombay Police Act.
In support of the petition which was heard along with Petitions Nos.
500 with one surety in like amount for your attendance during the inquiry of the said proceedings.
The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government of Bombay against the said order of externment.
N. P. Paranjapye Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch I , C.I.D. T.I. of Hari Dada Khemu Gawli.
That you were again arrested on 3 6 1949 in companynection with Nagpada P.S.C.R. No.
I have lived a clean and honourable life ever since.
I, N. P. Paranjapye, Superintendent, C.B.I., I.D., therefore require you to appear before me at H. P. Annexe I place on the said date viz.
In December 1953 an order of detention was passed against him under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and he was detained in the Thana District prison.
In order to give you opportunity of tendering your explanation regarding the said allegations, I have appointed 11 a.m. on 25 10 1954 to receive your explanation and to hear you and your witnesses, if any, in regard to the said allegations.
45, 1st floor, Haji Kassam Chawl, Lamington Road.
That number you have been arrested on 9 10 1954 at about 12 50 a.m. in the companypany of 7 others, viz.
Purshottam Trikamdas, V. R. Upadhya, J. B. Dadachanji and S. Andley, for the petitioner.
Amir Masud 2 Francis Sherao China 3 Antoo Narayan Abdul Wahab Abdul Gafoor 5 Laxman Rama 6 Narayan Tukaram and 7 Rajaram Vishnoo out of whom persons mentioned at Nos.
The first respondent aforesaid ultimately passed the order of externment which is Exhibit C to the petition, on the 8th November 1954.
a police officer Shri S. K. Kothare to deter him from the lawful discharge of his duties and made 3 persons in the lawful custody of the police to escape, but were discharged in the said case for want of sufficient evidence.
While those arrested persons were being taken to the police lorry for being taken to the police station, the petitioner and other persons forcibly rescued those arrested persons from the custody of the police.
In May 1949 the police had arrested three persons including Rajaram aforesaid, the petitioners brother for being companycerned in sale of illicit liquor.
That petition is Ex.
That you were arrested on 29 3 1948 in companynection with Nagpada P.S.C.R. No.
25 10 1954 at 11 a.m. for the said purpose and to pass a bond in the sum of Rs.
Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
In October 1954 the petitioner was served with a numberice under section 57 read with section 59 of the Act.
The petitioner, who claims to be a citizen of India, was born in Bombay and had been, before the order of externment in question, residing in one of the quarters of the City of Bombay.
The petitioner appeared before the Superintendent on the 8th November 1954 with his companynsel and filed a long petition companytaining allegations running into 16 paragraphs showing cause against the order of externment proposed to be passed against him.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, B. Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents.
Should you fail to appear before me and to pass the bond as directed above, I shall proceed with the inquiry in your absence.
The second respondent is the State of Bombay.
Accordingly he passed the order of externment against the petitioner, as set out above.
An externment order was passed against him in August 1950.
He moved the High Court of Bombay under article 226 of the Constitution against the said order of detention.
A set out above, but denied the truth of the other allegations made therein against him which he characterised as based on old prejudice and sus picion.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
and caused hurt to one Gopal Khemu Gawli but you were discharged in the said case for want of sufficient evidence.
B. The petitioner accepted the companyrectness of the allegation companytained in the first paragraph of Ex.
272 of 1955.
I and 6 are, previous companyvicts and that at the time of arrest you and persons mentioned at Nos.
1, 2, 3 and 4 were, armed with deadly weapons to wit, clasp knives, iron bar and a lathi, and thus you were reasonably suspected to be out to companymit an offence either against property or person And that you are likely again to engage yourself in the companymission of a similar offence falling either under Chapter XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code.
He keeps bullock carts for carrying on his business of transport and companys for selling milk.
439 and 440 of 1955 in which the orders impugned had been passed under section 56 of the Act and which are being disposed of by a separate judgment the leading argument by Shri Purshotham raised the companytentions, 1 that section 57 of the Act companytravened clauses d and e of article 19 1 of the Constitution and that the provisions of that section imposed unreasonable restrictions on the petitioners fundamental rights of free movement and residence and 2 that the order passed under section 57 against the petitioner is illegal inasmuch as it is based on vague allegations and inadmissible material, for example, on orders of discharge or acquittal.
Petition under.
That order was set aside by the Government in December 1950, on appeal by the petitioner.
It is companyvenient at this stage to set out the said numberice in extenso, which is Exhibit A to the petition filed in this Court Notice under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
On the night of the 9th October 1954 the petitioner was arrested along with his companypanions a little after midnight by members of the police force designated Ghost Squad, which was a special wing of the Crime Branch of the C.I.D., on the allegation made by the police that they were seen running away on the sight of a police van and that they were chased and arrested and were found in possession of knives and other weapons.
May 8.
But the case ultimately failed in August 1950 because the witnesses failed to turn up to give evidence against the accused including the petitioner.
was delivered by Sinha Jagannadhadas J. delivered a separate judgment.
Under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 Bombay Act XXII of 1951 , you are hereby informed that the following allegations are made against you in proceedings against you under section 57 of the said Act.
The petitioner alleges that the Prohibition Police of the City instituted twelve prohibition cases against him which all ended either in his discharge or acquittal.
Then he goes on to make reference to the other cases charged against him and claimed that he had been discharged in those cases for want of sufficient evidence.
Each of the two broad grounds has been elaborated and several points have been sought to be made under each one of those heads.
He was released from detention before the said petition was actually heard by the High Court.
Residence Room No.
As regards his companyviction referred to in the first paragraph aforesaid, he stated I had unfortunately a companyviction in 1938 when was a mere youth.
Though the petitioner was one of the persons companycerned with the crime, he was number charge sheeted because sufficient evidence was number forthcoming against him.
SINHA J. This petition under article 32 of the Constitution challenges the vires of certain provisions of the Bombay Police Act, XXII of 1951, which hereinafter will be referred to as The Act with particular reference to section 57 under which the externment order dated the 8th November 1954 was passed against the petitioner by the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch 1 , C.I.D., Greater Bombay.
The first respondent has sworn to the affidavit filed in this Court to the effect that the petitioner has been fully heard by the authorities before the order impugned in this case was passed.
The Judgment of S. R. Das C.J. and Venkatarama Ayyar, B. P. Sinha and Jafer Imam JJ.
Thereafter, the petitioner along with others was charged with possession of liquor.
Substantially on those allegations this Court has been moved under article 32 of the Constitution.
The case went on for about two years when he was ultimately discharged by the Presidency Magistrate on the 24th February 1955 as the prosecution witnesses were number present on the date fixed for hearing of the case.
The petitioner and three of the seven arrested persons were found smelling of alcohol.
But the appeal was dismissed.
The first respondent further stated in the affidavit that the material examined by him before passing the order impugned showed that since 1948 the petitioner had been resorting to violence and was companycerned in a number of cases involving acts of violence, namely In March 1948 a police companystable was assaulted.
The Presidency Magistrate, 17th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, had to adjourn the case several times for recording evidence of witnesses who remained absent and ultimately the companyrt refused to grant further adjournment for the production of witnesses and the case ended in a discharge for want of evidence.
Name, address age Hari alias Dada Khemu Gawali, Hindu aged about 37 years.
At about 12 50 a.m. on 9th October 1954, the Special Squad, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Bombay, while proceeding on their rounds numbericed the petitioner and seven others armed with an iron bar and lathi.
