Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a criminal writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality of externment orders dated 16.10.2025 and 22.12.2025 passed under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The petitioner, a labourer, had been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.158/2019, with subsequent offences registered, including Crime No.754/2024 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Crime No.124/2025 under the NDPS Act. The core legal issues involved whether the externment authority had correctly applied Section 57 by recording subjective satisfaction on the likelihood of the petitioner committing similar offences post-conviction, and whether the consideration of all registered offences, including those not similar or post-conviction, was permissible. The petitioner argued that the order was passed under Section 56 instead of Section 57, lacked subjective satisfaction, and improperly considered offences like those under the NDPS Act, which do not fall under Section 57. The State contended that the petitioner had committed seven serious offences, with proper procedure followed, and subjective satisfaction was evident from the order. The Court analyzed Section 57, emphasizing its specific parameters: conviction for enumerated offences and satisfaction that the person is likely to commit similar offences. It found that the impugned order considered all offences and societal impact, which are relevant under Section 56 but not under Section 57, and failed to record subjective satisfaction on the likelihood of similar offences. Citing a precedent, the Court noted that the authority must base satisfaction on objective material, which was lacking here. The decision quashed and set aside the externment orders, holding them bad in law due to non-compliance with Section 57 requirements.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment Proceedings - Subjective Satisfaction Under Section 57 Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 57 - The petitioner challenged externment orders passed under Section 57 after being convicted under Section 307 IPC and subsequent offences. The Court held that for an order under Section 57, the authority must record subjective satisfaction on two parameters: conviction for enumerated offences and likelihood of committing similar offences thereafter. The impugned order lacked such satisfaction and improperly considered all registered offences, including those not similar or registered after conviction, which is not permissible under Section 57. Held that the order was bad in law and quashed it. (Paras 7-10) B) Criminal Law - Externment Proceedings - Distinction Between Sections 56 and 57 Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Sections 56, 57 - The petitioner argued that the order, though initiated under Section 57, was passed under Section 56. The Court noted that Sections 56 and 57 have different parameters, with Section 57 specifically targeting persons convicted of certain offences who are likely to commit similar offences. The impugned order considered societal impact and all offences, which are relevant under Section 56 but not under Section 57. Held that the order did not comply with Section 57 requirements. (Paras 7-8) C) Criminal Law - Externment Proceedings - Consideration of Offences Under Section 57 Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 57 - The petitioner contended that offences registered after his conviction, including under NDPS Act, could not be considered under Section 57. The Court examined Section 57 and its Explanation, which defines 'similar offence' for clause (a)(i) as any offence under IPC chapters. It found that the authority failed to subjectively satisfy itself regarding the similarity of post-conviction offences and improperly considered all crimes. Held that this rendered the order invalid. (Paras 7-10) D) Criminal Law - Externment Proceedings - Maximum Externment Period Justification - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 57 - The petitioner raised a ground that the externment for two years lacked reasons justifying the maximum period. The Court referenced a Supreme Court judgment requiring subjective satisfaction based on material on record for maximum externment. Although not explicitly ruled on in this judgment, this ground was part of the petitioner's submissions challenging the order's validity. (Para 5)
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the externment orders passed under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 were legally valid, considering the authority's failure to record subjective satisfaction regarding the likelihood of the petitioner committing offences similar to his conviction and the improper consideration of offences not falling under Section 57
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The Court quashed and set aside the externment orders dated 16.10.2025 and 22.12.2025, holding them bad in law due to non-compliance with Section 57 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951
