http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.  ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MEHBOOB KHAN USMAN KHAN ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/04/1968

BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1968 AIR 1468            1968 SCR  (3) 746  CITATOR INFO :  F          1973 SC 630  (4)

ACT: Bombay  Police Act 22 of 1951 ss. 56 and 59--Notice to  show cause  under  s.  59  and  order  of  externment  under   s. 56--validity  of.--Whether  notice  must  contain   detailed particulars  of allegations--if general nature  of  material allegations sufficient to provide a person with   reasonable opportunity of explaining his conduct.

HEADNOTE: The  Deputy  Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad  City  served notices on the respondents in the two appeals on August  13, 1964 and July 28, 1964 under s. 59 of Bombay Police Act XXII of  1951  informing them that various allegations  had  been made  against  them under s. 56 of the Act and that  it  was proposed  to remove them outside the District  of  Ahmedabad City  and certain contiguous Districts.  An opportunity  was given to them of tendering their explanations in respect  of the allegations on dates which were communicated to them  in the  notices.   Each of the notices  contained  allegations, inter  alia,  to the effect that  the  respondents  consumed eatables from places of public entertainment without payment and  when legal dues were demanded from them, they  beat  up the persons concerned; and that the witnesses in respect  of the  various incidents and allegations were not  willing  to come forward to depose against the respondents in public  by reason  of apprehension on their part as regards the  safety of  their  person and property.  After the  respondents  had submitted  their written explanations and produced  evidence in  their defence, the Deputy Commissioner passed orders  on November  9,  1964  and  February  9,  1965  directing   the respondents to remove themselves from areas mentioned in the order  for a period of two years and not to enter  the  same without  permission  in writing obtained  from  a  competent authority. The  respondents  thereafter challenged the  orders  of  the Deputy  Commissioner in writ petitions under Arts.  226  and 227 of the Constitution and contended. inter alia, that  the notices  on which the subsequent orders of  externment  were passed  were  too  vague both with regard to  the  time  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

places  of  their alleged activities; the  allegations  made against them were so general that they could not effectively offer  any explanations or substantiate their  defence;  and that in effect the material allegations against them had not been  set  out  in the notices and there  was  therefore  no proper  compliance  with the provisions of.s. 59  so  as  to enable the Deputy Commissioner to take action under s. 56 of the Act.  The High Court allowed the petitions holding  that the notices were invalid as they were too general and vague. It  also  held  that the definition of "a  place  of  public entertainment" in the Act would take in the numerous  places mentioned in s. 2(10) and accordingly the respondents  could not have sufficient opportunity of explaining their  conduct not  knowing what particular places of public  entertainment they  were supposed to have visited where they were  alleged to  have committed various acts alleged against  them.   The High Court therefore quashed the notices under s. 59 as well as the orders of externment passed against the respondents. On appeal to this Court, 747 HELD  :  The  High Court was in error in  holding  that  the notices under s.    59 and the orders of externment under s. 56 were invalid. The view that the allegations against the respondents should have  contained  all  the particulars of  places  of  public entertainment  or establishments they were supposed to  have visited, was not warranted by the provisions of s. 59.   The notices  referred to the periods during which the acts  were stated  to  have been committed, as well as the  area  where they  were said to have been committed.  The mere fact  that the   definition   of  the  expression  ’place   of   public entertainment’,  in  s. 2(10) of the Act  takes  in  various types  of places, does not militate against the  allegations in question being material allegations as contemplated under s. 59. [757 D-E] When  a  person  against  whom an  order  of  externment  is proposed  to  be passed has to tender an  explanation  to  a notice  under  s. 59, he can only give an explanation  of  a general nature.  It may be open to him to take a defence  of the action being taken due to mala fides, malice or mistaken identity,  or be may be able to tender proof of his  general good  conduct,  or alibi, during the period covered  by  the notice  and the like.  The allegations made in  the  notices issued  under  s. 59 as against the  respective  respondents contained  the  general nature of the  material  allegations made against each of them in respect of which they had  been given a reasonable opportunity of tendering an  explanation. [757 G, H] Hari  Khemu  Gawali v. The Deputy  Commissioner  of  Police, Bombay,   [1956]  S.C.R.  506  and  Bhagubhai   Dullabhabhai Bhanedari  v. The District Magistrate, Thana, [1956]  S.C.R. 533; relied upon.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos.  167 and 168 of 1965. Appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders dated April 8, 1965 of the Gujarat High Court in Special  Criminal Applications Nos. 3 and 8 of 1965. G.   L. Sanghi and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellants (in both the appeals). O.  P. Malhotra and P. C. Bhartari, for respondents (in  Cr. A. No. 167 of 1965).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

Arun  H. Mehta and I. N. Shroff, for respondents (in Cr,  A. No. 168 of 1965). 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.  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.   Act  XXII  of  195   1), (hereinafter  referred to as the Act).  Criminal Appeal  No. 167  of  1965  is  directed against  the  order  in  Special Criminal Application No. 3 of 1965, and Criminal Appeal  No. 168 of 1965 is 748 directed  against the order in Special 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 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. 500 with one surety in like amount  for               your attendance during the enquiry of the said               proceedings.   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  normal  manner  and               decision will be taken in your absence.               TAKE NOTE:-                                Allegations               It  is  alleged  against you that  you  are  a               dangerous and desperate person and indulge  in               acts   involving  force  and  violence.    You               terrorise  the  residents  of  the  localities               known  as  Rentiawadi, Halimkhadki  and  round               about areas under Karanj and Madhavpura Police               Stations.   Since the month of  November  1963

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

             till  today you are engaged in the  commission               of   the  following  offence  in   the   above               localities               749               1.    You  way-lay, rob and extort money  from               the  persons at the point of knife  and  under               threats of violence;               2.    You demand money from the persons and on               their refusal to pay you beat them:               3.    You  consume eatables from the place  of               public entertainment without payment and  when               legal dues are demanded you beat the person.               You  are engaged in several acts as  mentioned               in  paras (1), (2) and (3) above and that  the               witnesses  to  the  above  incidents  are  not               Willing to come 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.  It is also Proposed to extern  you               out  of the contiguous Districts of  Ahmedabad               Rural, Kaira and Mehsana as you are likely  to               operate and indulge in your violent activities               from  the  contiguous Districts  also  through               your   associates   and  agents  if   not   so               externed." The said notice was served on the party on August 20,  1964. 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.  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 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 their person and Pr 750 Finally, the order concludes 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  contiguous Districts of Ahmedabad Rural, Kaira and Mehsana, within  two days from the date of service of the order.  The order  also concludes,  by-saying that the respondent should not  return to or reenter the places mentioned therein, for a period  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

two years from the date of the order, without obtaining  the permission, in writing, of the competent authority. The  respondent  in  Criminal Appeal  167/65  filed  Special Criminal  Application  No. 3 of 1965, in  the  Gujarat  High Court,  under  Arts. 226 and 227, of the  Constitution,  for quashing this order of externment, passed against him.   The main  ground, on which the order was challenged, appears  to be  that  the notice, 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 could not offer,  effectively,  any explanation, or substantiate his defence.  In short, it  was the grievance of the respondent that, in the notice,  issued under S. 50, the material allegations, had not been set out, and therefore, there had been no proper compliance with  the provisions  of  that  section, so as to  enable  the  Deputy Commissioner,  to take action, under S. 56 of the Act.   The respondent raised certain other objections, to the  validity and  legality of the order, one of which was that the  order of  externment,  had  not  been  passed,  by  the  competent officer. In the counter-affidavits, filed before the High Court,  the Deputy Commissioner has stated that though the notice, 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.  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  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 751 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 an order was  ultimately  passed, under  s.  56.  It is further averred  that  the  notice  is explicit  and  contains the general nature of  the  material allegations,  against the respondent, as is required, by  s. 59  of  the  Act.  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.   On  these and other  averments  made,  in  the counter-affidavit,  the Deputy Commissioner  submitted  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

the  order did not suffer from any infirmity, as alleged  by the respondent. The  learned Judges of the Gujarat High Court, in the  order under attack, have accepted the position that, under s.  59, the competent officer should inform the person, in  writing, of  the general nature of the material  allegations  against him.   It  is  their view that the nature  of  the  material allegations  should not be so general, as to make it  vague, and not precise, and that it must be of such a character  as to  give the person, concerned, a reasonable opportunity  of tendering    an   explanation,   regarding   the    material allegations.   Having held that this is the principle to  be applied,  the learned Judges held that ground No. 3, of  the notice dated August 13, 1964, served on the-respondent,  was open  to the objection of ’vagueness’.  In this  connection, the   learned  Judges  .refer  to  the  definition  of   the expression  ’place of public entertainment, as contained  in s.  2(10),  of the Act.  They further hold  that  to  allege against  any individual that he consumed,  without  payment, eatables,  i.e., articles of food, from a place  of  public, entertainment’,  which  will  take in  the  various  places, mentioned  in  s.  2(10),  of  the  Act,  would  not  afford sufficient  opportunity  to  the  respondent,  as  to   what particular   places   of  public  entertainment,   or   what particular establishment Ike is supposed to have visited and consumed eatables, without payment, and had ,beaten persons, when  legal  dues  were  demanded.  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 notice_, he is supposed to have visited and consumed eatables, without payment, and beat- 752 en  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  in  this notice, it was mentioned that the respondent was a desperate man, indulging in acts of violence and force, and that since September 1963, till the date of the notice, he was  engaged in  the commission of the three acts, mentioned therein,  in the  localities, known as Kazi-na-dhaba,  Maruwas,  Jamalpur and round about those places.  It is enough only to refer to the  first  allegation, contained in this notice,  which  is substantially similar to the third allegation, mentioned  in the notice, issued against Mahboob Khan Usman Khan; and that allegation  was  to the effect that the  respondent  visited

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

places  of public entertainment and refused to pay  for  the articles,  consumed by him, under threats of Violence.   The notice  further-stated that the witnesses to  the  incident, mentioned  therein,  were not willing to, come  forward  and depose  against  the  respondent in  public,  by  reason  of apprehension, on their part, as regards the safety of  their person and property.  It was hence stated in the notice that it  was proposed to extern the respondent, from  the  areas, mentioned  therein, for a period of two years.   The  notice also  intimated that 11 a.m., on August 6, 1964,  was  fixed for receiving the explanation of the respondent, as well  as for  hearing  him  and any of the witnesses  that  he  might produce,  with  reference to the allegations,  made  in  the notice.   It  is seen from the records that  the  respondent appeared  before the officer dnd filed  written  statements, examined  witnesses  in support of his defence and  that  an advocate appeared for him.  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 not to enter the same, without permission in writing, obtained from a corn- 753 petent   authority.    In  this  order   also   the   Deputy Commissioner  has  stated that, on the  materials  available before  him and, after considering the explanation and  the. evidence, produced by the respondent, he was satisfied  that the respondent was a desperate and dangerous person and  was engaged  in the commission of acts, involving  violence  and acts, punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII, of the  Indian Penal Code, in the areas, mentioned in the notice, and  that the three allegations, mentioned therein, were  established, and,  in view of the fact that the witnesses, regarding  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  under  s.  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 reasonable   opportunity   of  tendering   an   explanation, regarding  the allegations, made against him.   The  learned Judges  of  the Gujarat High Court, adopting  the  reasoning given  in Special Criminal Application No. 3 of  1965,  held that   the  notice,  under  s.  59,  was  invalid  and,   in consequence, the order of externment, also, must fall to the ground.  The learned Judges have held that allegation No. 1, in  the notice, dated July 28, 1964, is analogous to  ground No.  3,  in the connected application, and that  ground  had been  held to be vague.  In consequence, the learned  Judges

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

struck down the order of externment, dated February 9, 1965, as  well as the notice, dated July 28, 1964.  This  order.is attacked, by the Deputy Commissioner, in Criminal,Appeal No. 168 of 1965. Mr.  G.  L.  Sanghi,  learned  counsel,  appearing  for  the appellants,  in these appeals, has raised two contentions  : (1)  that  both the respondents had a right  of  appeal,  as provided  under S. 60 of the Act, to the  State  Government, against  the  orders, passed under s. 56 of  the  Act,  and, therefore,  the writ petitions, filed by them, in  the  High Court,  should  not  have been  entertained;  (2)  that  the striking  down, of the orders of externment,  as  containing vague 754 allegations, Was not justified, as the notices were strictly in accordance with s. 59, of the Act. At  the  outset,  it may be stated that the  period  of  two years, for which the respondents were sought lo be externed, has already expired and, in one sense, it now becomes purely academic,  to  consider  the correctness of  the  orders  of externment.  But, counsel for the appellant has pointed  out that  the  State is anxious to have a  decision,  from  this Court,  regarding  the  legal position,  under  s.  59,  and therefore  the  correctness of the views, expressed  by  the High  Court, may be considered by this Court.  It  has  been made  clear before us that no action will be  taken  against the respective .respondents, in these appeals, on the  basis of  the orders, which are the subject of consideration.   No doubt,  Mr. Malhotra and Mr. I. N. Shroff, learned  counsel, appearing  for the respective respondents, in  the  appeals, have urged that the views, expressed by the High Court,  are correct. Regarding the first contention, we see no merit, especially, when  the High Court, in the exercise of  its  jurisdiction, under  Arts.  226  and 227, has not  chosen  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 mainte- nance 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 proceedings. Section 60 provides for an appeal, to the State  Government, against an order passed under ss. 55, 56 or 57. Normally, we would have dealt with the scheme of these  sec- tions, and in particular, of s. 56 and 59, very elaborately; but,  we  are  absolved  from that  task,  in  view  of  two decisions of this Court, in Hari Khemu Gawali v. The  Deputy Commissioner of Police 755

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

Bombay(1)   and  Bhagubhai  Dullabhabhai  Bhandari  v.   The District  Magistrate, Thana (2 ) . A writ petition, No.  272 of  1955 was filed, under Art. 32, challenging the vires  of the  Act  and,  in  particular  the  provisions  of  s.  57. Similarly, in two other writ petitions, Nos. 439 and 440  of 1955, the provisions of s. 56, of the Act, were  challenged, and a particular attack was made, against the notice, issued under  s. 59, on the ground that the allegations,  contained therein,  were  vague and too general.   Though  this  Court delivered  two  separate judgments, which are  reported,  as above,  one in respect of writ petition No. 272 of 1955  and the  other in respect of writ petitions Nos. 439 and 440  of 1955,  it is seen from the reports, that all  these  matters were  heard  together.   We are  referring  to  this  aspect because  the  scheme of the Act and, in particular,  of  the provisions  of ss. 55 to 57, have been dealt with  in  these judgments.   The  Act  has been held to be  valid  and  the, sections, with which we are concerned, viz., ss. 56 and  59, have  also  been  held  to be valid.  We  do  not  find  any reference, unfortunately, in the judgment of the High Court, to these two decisions of this Court. In  the  first  decision,  it is stated at  p.  518  of  the Reports,  that the Act is based on the principle that it  is desirable,  in  the larger interests of  society,  that  the freedom of movement, and residence of a comparatively  fewer number of people, should be restrained, so that the majority of the community may move and live in peace and harmony, and carry on their peaceful avocations untrammelled by any  fear or  threat  of  violence to their person  or  property.   In particular, it is also stated that the individuals right  to reside  in and move freely in any part of the  territory  of India,  has  to  yield  to  the  larger  interests  of   the community.  This Court further states that ss. 56 and 57  of the Act, broadly speaking, correspond to s. 46 of Act IV  of 1890  and s. 27 of Act IV of 1902.  The 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 (1) [1956] S. C. R. 506. (2) [1956] S. C. R. 533. 756 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               "But in the very nature of things it could not               have been otherwise.  The grounds available to               an externee had necessarily to be very limited               in  their  scope  because  if  evidence   were               available  which could be adduced  in  public,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

             such  a person could be dealt with  under  the               preventive  sections of the Code  of  Criminal               Procedure,  for example, under section 107  or               section  110.  But the special provisions  now               under  examination proceed on the  basis  that               the  person dealt with under any of  the  sec-               tions  55, 56 or 57 is of such a character  as               not  to permit the ordinary laws of  the  land               being  put  in  motion in  the  ordinary  way,               namely,  of examining witnesses in open  court               who  should  be cross-examined  by  the  party               against   whom   they  were   deposing.    The               provisions  we are now examining  are  plainly               intended to be used in special cases requiring               special treatment, that is, cases which cannot               be dealt with under the preventive sections of               the Code of Criminal Procedure." In  the  second decision, where this Court had  to  consider ,specifically the scope of s. 56, it has been held that  the common  arguments, regarding ss. 56 to 59, had already  been dealt with and discussed in the first decision.  The parties against whom the order ,of externment had been passed, under s.  56, specifically challenged the notice, issued under  s. 59,  on  the ground that the particulars  of  the  evidence, against them, and of their alleged activities, had not  been mentioned  and  that  amounted to not  giving  a  reasonable opportunity  to  explain, as envisaged, under s.  59.   This contention  was  disposed of, by this Court, on  the  ground that  it had been dealt with, in the judgment, given by  it, in the earlier decision, to which we have already  referred. Ultimately,  s.  56  was held to be valid  and  the  notice, issued under s. 59, was also held to be valid. In  our opinion, in considering as to whether  the  notices, issued  in the present cases, under s. 59, suffer  from  any infirmity,  the ,observations of this Court, in  Hari  Khemu Gawali’s case(1), extracted above, will have to be borne  in mind. During  the  course  of  the  arguments,  counsel  for   the respondent,  have drawn our attention to a decision. of  the Bombay High .Court in In re: Govind Pandurang(2) and that of the  Gujarat  High  Court,  in  Jawaher  v.   Sub-Divisional Magistrate(3), inter- (1) [1956] S. C. R. 506.      (2) A. 1. R. 1956 Dom. 61. (3)  (1962) 3 Guj.  L. R. 1041. 757 preting  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

supplied  with particulars of the allegations  made  against him.   We  are therefore. not inclined to accept  the  above reasoning of the Gujarat High Court.  The notices,  referred to the periods during which the acts are stated to have been committed,  as well as the area where they are said to  have been  committed.  No doubt, the expression ’place of  public entertainment’,  is defined in s. 2(10) of the Act; but  the mere fact that the said definition takes in various types of places,  does not militate against the allegation No. 1,  in Special  Criminal Application No. 3 of 1965,  or  allegation No.  3,  in the connected application, being  of  a  general nature  of the material allegations, as contemplated,  under s.  59.   Without attempting to be exhaustive we  may  state that  when  a person is stated to be a ’thief’,  that  alle- gation  is  vague.  Again, when it is said that ’A  stole  a watch from X on a particular day and at a particular place’, the allegation can be said to be particular.  Again, when it is stated that ’X is seen at crowded bus stands and he picks pockets’ it is of a general nature of a material allegation. Under  the  last illustration, given above,  will  come  the allegations,  which,  according to the Gujarat  High  Court, suffer  from  being too general, or vague.   Considering  it from the point of view of the party against whom an order of externment  is proposed to be passed, it must be  emphasized that when he has to tender an explanation to a notice, under s.  59, he can only give an explanation, which can be  of  a general nature.  It may be open to him to take a defence, of the  action  being  taken,  due to  mala  fides,  malice  or mistaken identity, or he may be able to tender proof of  his general good conduct, or alibi, during the period covered by the  notice  and  the like.  The  allegations  made  in  the notices,  issued  under  s. 59, as  against  the  respective respondents,  in our opinion, contain the general nature  of the material allegations made against each of 758 them,  in respect of which the respondents had been given  a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation,  regard- ing  them.   Therefore,  it follows that  the  view  of  the Gujarat  High Court that the notices, under s. 59,  and  the orders  of  externment, passed under s.  56,  are  invalid,’ cannot  be sustained.  The orders of the Gujarat High  Court are,  accordingly,  set aside, and these  criminal  appeals, allowed.  But, we may make it again clear, that in spite  of our decision, in favour of the appellants, no action can  be taken  against  the respondents, in these  appeals,  on  the basis of the orders, which are now held to be valid. R.K.P.S.                    Appeals allowed.  759