Reached Daily Limit?

Explore a new way of legal research!

Click Here
Bombay High CourtIndian Cases

Vinod Ambalal Patel vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 September 1987

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Bombay High Court
Vinod Ambalal Patel vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 September, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987(3)BOMCR513
JUDGMENT
C.S. Dharmadhikari, Ag.C.J.

1. In this case the order of externment dated 28th August, 1985 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D. Greater Bombay, under section 57 of the Bombay Police Act is challenged mainly on the ground that the convictions referred to in the show cause notice and the order are too stale to arrive at a conclusion that the externee is likely to indulge in similar activities. In support of this contention, Shri Ghorwadkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (appointed) placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Vishnu Ramchandra, . On the other hand, it is contended by Shri Chopda, the learned Public Prosecutor, that after externee was convicted on 14th June, 1982 and was released from the jail sometime in October 1983, he was again found indulging in similar activities and came to be apprehended on 7th August, 1985 which clearly shows that he had continued the similar activities and was likely to continue it is future.

2. In the show cause notice as well as in the Externment Order, in all nine cases are referred to in which the externee was convicted on 18th June, 1982 under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. These offences related to theft of the vehicles, viz. two-wheelers. After he was released from Jail, he was apprehended on 7th August, 1985 when he was found riding a motor-cycle which was stolen on 24th July, 1985. Thus, even after the convictions in nine cases and release from jail the externee was found indulging in similar offences. It is no doubt true that he was released in October 1983 and then came to be apprehended in August 1985, but from these an inference cannot be drawn that he had not continued the similar activities. It is no doubt true that in State of Bombay v. Vishnu Ramchandra, it is held by the Supreme Court that the order under section 57 of the Bombay Police Act must be made bona fide taking into account the conviction which is sufficiently proximate in time. However, it is further clarified by the Supreme Court that no absolute rule can be laid down and each case must depend on its own facts. The previous convictions of an externee can appropriately be taken into for making an Externment Order under section 57. It is usually from these previous convictions that the tendency or inclination of a man can be inferred. From these if it is reasonable possible to drawn an inference that he is likely in further to act in similar manner, then it cannot be said that the convictions are stale and not proximate. Ultimately, it must depend upon the facts of each case. In the case before us, the externee was convicted in nine cases in June 1982. He came out of jail in October 1983, again he was apprehended in a similar case in August, 1985, and from these an inference is drawn that he is likely to indulge in similar activities. In view of the recent involvement of the externee in similar activities, the Externing Authority, in our view, could have drawn a reasonable inference that he has not abandoned his activities and the live link is not snapped. If this is so, then, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that his earlier convictions had become stale and the live link was snapped.

3. In the view which we have taken, therefore, there is no substance in this writ petition. Rule discharged.