JUDGMENT : Indira Jain, J. This Larger Bench is constituted by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice pursuant to the Reference made by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.) by the order dated 26.08.2016 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.386/2016 (Pankaj s/o Bhallaji Atram vs. State of Maharashtra and others). 2. The said Division Bench made the Reference in view of the divergence of views between two Division Benches of this Court in the case of Akram Ajij Shaikh .vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2013 AllMR(Cri) 3999) and the unreported decision of the Division Bench in Pankaj Bhallaji Atram vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Criminal Writ Petition No.386/2016. The divergence of views between the two Division Benches of this Court was as regards the need of attending pending court cases against externee to be a relevant circumstance to extern a particular person and non consideration thereof and not providing appearance therein is an instance of non application of mind vitiating the order of externment under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (for short “Police Act”). 3. In pursuance to the Reference made, this Court vide order dated 3.2.2017 framed the following question for consideration. Whether the issue regarding pendency of the criminal cases against the externee and his kith and kin to attend the said cases is a question germane to the issue as to whether the petitioner should be externed or not.? 4. Before proceeding to answer the aforesaid question, it would be apposite to refer to the two judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in case of Akram Ajij Shaikh (supra) and Pankaj Bhallaji Atram's case (supra). (a) In Akram Ajij Shaikh's case, petitioner was resident of Audogik Vasahat Zopadpatti, Pune. He was served with a show cause notice under Section 59(1) of the Police Act stating therein about the proposal to extern him from Pune City, Pune District and adjoining five districts, for a period of two years and called upon him to show cause why he should not be so externed. (b) The notice referred to clauses (a) and (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 56 of the Police Act. It was alleged in the said notice that offences of serious nature have been registered against him. (b) The notice referred to clauses (a) and (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 56 of the Police Act. It was alleged in the said notice that offences of serious nature have been registered against him. (c) Reference was made to the three criminal cases pending against the petitioner and that petitioner had no occupation. He is addicted to liquor and threatens persons passing by the road and that he was causing damage to public property etc. and, therefore, he was terror in the locality, people were not coming forward to lodge a report against him. (d) Petitioner appeared before the externing authority and filed his statement of defence. He, inter alia, denied the allegations in the show cause notice and claimed that he was falsely implicated in criminal cases. The externing authority passed the order of externment dated 28.3.2013 externing the petitioner from limits of Pune city and Pune district for a period of two years under the provisions of Section 56(1)(a) and 56(1)(b) of the Police Act. (e) Appeal filed by petitioner under Section 60 of the Police Act was heard by the Secretary (Spl.) Home Department, Government of Maharashtra and by an order dated 4.6.2013, appeal was rejected. (f) Being aggrieved, petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.2189/2013 before the High Court. In the petition, it was the contention of petitioner that notice was defective and the order of externment was illegal as there was no clear mention under which part of clause (b), petitioner was proposed to be externed. It was also contended that in show cause notice there was no mention about the activity carried out by petitioner which would fall within clause (a) of the said sub section. (g) On hearing the parties and taking into consideration show cause notice and order of externment, Division Bench observed in paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 thus :- “10. In the view that, we are taking, it is not necessary to discuss the contentions raised by the petitioner in the petition. In our opinion, there is one aspect of the matter that needs to be considered, though, such a point has not been specifically raised by the petitioner. 11. A perusal of the externment order shows that the externing authority has not applied its mind as to the pendency of the cases against the petitioner and the effect of the externment order upon the pending cases. 11. A perusal of the externment order shows that the externing authority has not applied its mind as to the pendency of the cases against the petitioner and the effect of the externment order upon the pending cases. Obviously, the petitioner is on bail in the 3 cases, said to be pending against him, which have been mentioned in the show cause notice and also in the externment order. The prosecution of criminal cases pending against a person is a serious matter. The petitioner's presence before the concerned court would be essential for the progress of the said cases. Naturally, due to the externment order, the petitioner would not be in a position to attend the court in connection with the cases pending against him, as the court is situated in the area from which the petitioner has been externed. In our opinion, the externing authority would not be justified in not taking into consideration the consequences of the externment order in relation to the criminal cases, pending against the petitioner. 12. The pending prosecutions are serious affairs and the State is not expected to take a light or casual approach in respect of such prosecutions. It would be more so, when the petitioner is alleged to be a person of notorious character and indulging repeatedly into offences. If the State would be able to secure a conviction of the petitioner, in any of the pending cases, it would have more serious and drastic consequences for the petitioner, and it would be more effective than the externment order. As such, the State is expected to be keen on successful prosecution of the petitioner. If the petitioner would not be able to attend the court, the criminal cases against him would remain pending, reducing the chances of successfully establishing the charges against the petitioner, because of the time gap. Moreover, the concerned court is not expected to be aware that the petitioner has been externed and, therefore, likely to view his absence as serious, taking various coercive steps against him. Even if the court is, later on, informed that the petitioner is unable to attend because he has been externed, the court is not obliged to stay the trial on that ground. 13. Even if the court is, later on, informed that the petitioner is unable to attend because he has been externed, the court is not obliged to stay the trial on that ground. 13. We do not suggest that, in view of the pendency of the cases, an order for externment ought not to be passed, but what we hold is that the fact of the pendency of the cases, and the effect of the externment order on the pending cases must be considered by the externing authority before taking a decision to pass the externment order. In this context, the externment authority is expected to apply its mind with respect to the stage of the cases and the likelihood of the cases being disposed of within a short time. The least that can be expected of the externing authority is such cases is that, the authority must grant a general permission, to be specified in the externment order, that the person extended shall be permitted to enter the area, out of which he has been externed, for the purpose of remaining present in the courts in connection with the criminal cases pending against him. In the instant case, there has neither been any discussion in the externment order, indicating that the externing authority applied its mind as to the position of the criminal cases pending against the petitioner, and as to the effect of the externment order on the pending criminal cases, nor has the externing authority granted a general permission to the petitioner to enter the area from which he was being externed, for the purpose of remaining present before the court in connection with the cases against him. 14. In our opinion, pending prosecutions against a person cannot be considered as secondary or unimportant matters so that the effect of the externment order on the pending prosecutions would be of no consequence at all. Therefore, the awareness on the part of the externing authority that because of the externment proceedings, the criminal proceedings against the accused would be delayed; that it might cause problems for the accused on account of not being able to attend the court on the dates of such cases and also to the trial court for being unable to procure the presence of an accused before it and to proceed with the trial, should be reflected in the externment order itself. If the externing authority would apply its mind to this aspect of the matter, it is likely to grant a general permission to the person externed for enterning into the specified area for the purpose of remaining present before the courts of law in connection with pending criminal cases against the petitioner. In our opinion, non-application of mind in respect of the aforesaid angles of the matter, amounts to leaving out relevant considerations, and vitiates the order of externment. The appellate authority also did not consider this aspect of the matter.” 5. (a) In Pankaj Bhallaji Atram's case (supra), challenge was to an externment order dated 27.4.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Nagpur City, Nagpur by which petitioner was externed from Nagpur City for a period of one year. This order was passed after a show cause notice dated 8.3.2016. The submission of petitioner therein was that fact of pendency of several court cases was not considered by the externing authority and appropriate arrangement for his entry within the City to attend the court matters was not made and, therefore, the order of externment was unsustainable in law in view of the decision of this Court in case of Akram Ajij Shaikh (supra). (b) Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State invited the attention to the provisions of Section 63 of the Police Act and submitted that authorities have been given ample powers to provide for contingencies like appearing in the court cases. Submission was that the petitioner can seek the permission of the externing authority or the State Government to enter the City for appearing in the court cases. (c) Taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the parties, Division Bench expressed its disagreement with the decision in case of Akram Ajij Shaikh (supra) and observed in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 as under :- 8. We have carefully considered the matter. 9. There are 3 cases pending against the petitioner, as per the following details which are found in the show cause notice u/s 59 of the said Act. Sr. No. Police Station C.R. No. Sections of Law Present position 1. Swargate 300/2012 IPC 392, 385, 427, 34 Investigation 2. Swargate 16/2012 IPC 326, 427, 34 Pending in Court 3. Swargate 372/2010 IPC 143, 147, 148, 326, Mumbai Police Act, 17(1), 135 - 10. Sr. No. Police Station C.R. No. Sections of Law Present position 1. Swargate 300/2012 IPC 392, 385, 427, 34 Investigation 2. Swargate 16/2012 IPC 326, 427, 34 Pending in Court 3. Swargate 372/2010 IPC 143, 147, 148, 326, Mumbai Police Act, 17(1), 135 - 10. In the view that, we are taking, it is not necessary to discuss the contentions raised by the petitioner in the petition. In our opinion, there is one aspect of the matter that needs to be considered, though, such a point has not been specifically raised by the petitioner.” 6. In the light of the above, main issue involved in this Reference is whether non consideration of pending court cases and not providing for appearance therein is an instance of non application of mind vitiating the order of externment as held in case of Akram Ajij Shaikh (supra) or whether need of attending pending court cases against externee cannot be a relevant circumstance to extern a particular person as held vide order 26.8.2016 in Pankaj Bhallaji Atram .vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Writ Petition No.386/2016). 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Shri R.R. Vyas, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in criminal trials and prosecutions, accused has to remain present on each day or he has to apply for personal exemption under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that, except in case of sessions trials, programme is generally not fixed and accused would not be in a position to know whether case would go on day to day basis or not. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel, it causes inconvenience and great hardship to the externee to seek permission every time of the authority to enter the place of restriction where the courts are located and where accused has to attend the court cases. Learned counsel submits that to avoid such hardship and inconvenience, it is incumbent on the authority to apply its mind and grant general permission to the externee to enter for the purpose of remaining present before a court to attend the pending cases. Learned counsel points out that non consideration of pending court cases and not providing for appearance therein would be an instance of non application of mind thereby vitiating the order of externment. 8. Learned counsel points out that non consideration of pending court cases and not providing for appearance therein would be an instance of non application of mind thereby vitiating the order of externment. 8. By our order dated 3.2.2017, we directed the Registry to give a copy of the order to the High Court Bar Association and Association was requested to give a notice to its members to assist the court in this Reference. 9. S/Shri R.P. Joshi, Amit Kinkhede and Rajat Maheshwari, learned advocates graciously appeared and advanced their submissions. It was vehemently argued that accused has constitutional freedom to defend himself and in case externment order does not take care of the need of an accused to attend the pending criminal cases, said order would be hit by non application of mind and in such cases externment order needs to be quashed and set aside. It was strenuously submitted that curtailing liberty of a person from attending the pending court cases would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be an intention of the legislature in enacting the provisions of Chapter V of the Police Act. 10. In response to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned advocates, Shri S.M. Ukey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that provisions of Section 63 of the Police Act take care of the contingency like appearance in the court cases and it is free for the externee like petitioner to apply for permission to the competent authority for entering the place to attend the court cases. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that need of attending pending court cases against the externee would not be a relevant circumstance as the same is not covered under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act and non consideration of the same and not providing appearance therein would not be an instance of non application of mind vitiating the order of externment under Section 56 of the Act. 11. Before proceeding to decide the Reference, it would be apt to reproduce here relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 relating to special measures for maintenance of public order and safety of State. Chapter V is in two parts : (I) deals with employment of Additional police, recovery of cost thereof and of riots compensation, its assessment and recovery. Before proceeding to decide the Reference, it would be apt to reproduce here relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 relating to special measures for maintenance of public order and safety of State. Chapter V is in two parts : (I) deals with employment of Additional police, recovery of cost thereof and of riots compensation, its assessment and recovery. The same is not relevant in the present controversy, and relevant is (II) relating to dispersal of gangs and removal of persons convicted by certain offences and of certain beggars. 12. Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is the relevant provision to be considered in the present Reference. The same reads as under :- 56. The same is not relevant in the present controversy, and relevant is (II) relating to dispersal of gangs and removal of persons convicted by certain offences and of certain beggars. 12. Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is the relevant provision to be considered in the present Reference. The same reads as under :- 56. Removal of persons about to commit offence :- [(1)] Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under section 7 to the Commissioner and in other area or areas to which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the Sub- Divisional Magistrate empowered by the State Government in that behalf - (a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculating to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, or [(bb)] that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is acting or is about to act- (1) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Antisocial and other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980, or (2) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, or (c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant, the said officer may, by an order in writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or such prejudicial Act or the outbreak or spread of such disease or notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to remove himself outside such area or areas in the state of Maharashtra whether within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the officer or not and whether continguous or not, by such route, and within such time, as the officer may specify and not to enter or return to the area or areas specified (hereinafter referred to as “the specified area or areas”) from which he was directed to remove himself). (2) An officer directing any person under sub-section (1) to remove himself from any specified area or areas in the State may further direct such person that during the period the order made against him is in force, as and when he resides in any other areas in the State, he shall report his place of residence to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station once in every month, even if there be no change in his address. The said officer may also direct that, during the said period, as and when he goes away from the State, he shall, within ten days from the date of his departure from the State send a report in writing to the said officer, either by post or otherwise, of the date of his departure, and as and when he comes back to the State he shall, within ten days, from the date of his arrival in the State, report the date of his arrival to the officer in-charge of the police station nearest to the place where he may be staying.” 13. The object underlying this provision is to protect the area or areas of districts from probable danger of commission of offences by externee as externment would sever his link with normal area of his criminal activities and would reduce his criminal propensity in general. This provision is enacted with a view to ensure that majority of the people may live in peace and harmony and will be able to carry on their lawful avocations, untrammeled by constant fear or threat of danger to their life or property. Needless to mention here that provisions of Section 56 of the Police Act makes a serious inroad on personal liberty but such restraints have to be suffered in the larger interests of the society. 14. In case of Gurbachan Singh v. The State of Bombay and another, validity of Section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902 which corresponds to section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act was upheld. Following that decision, challenge to the constitutionality of section 56 was repelled in Bhagubhai Dullabhbhai Bhandari vs. The District Magistrate, Thana and others. 14. In case of Gurbachan Singh v. The State of Bombay and another, validity of Section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902 which corresponds to section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act was upheld. Following that decision, challenge to the constitutionality of section 56 was repelled in Bhagubhai Dullabhbhai Bhandari vs. The District Magistrate, Thana and others. In this case, it was observed that care must be taken to ensure that the terms of Sections 56 and 59 are strictly complied with and that the slender safeguards which those provisions offer are made available to the proposed externee. It is primarily for the externing authority to decide how best the externment order can be made effective, so as to sub-serve its real purpose. No general formulation or uniform guidelines can be made that the externment order should be restricted to the area to which the illegal activities of the externee extend. It ultimately depends on area of criminal activities of the externee and gravity of threat perception which would defer from case to case. 15. Sub-section (1) (a) (b) (bb) (c) of Section 56 of the Act deals with the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned. Sub-section 2 of Section 56 of the Police Act empowers the officer passing the order of externment to further direct such person :- (i) that, during the period the order made against him is in force, as and when he resides in any other areas in the State, he shall report his place of residence to the officer incharge of the nearest police station once in every month, even if there be no change in his address. (ii) that, during the said period, as and when he goes away from the State, he shall, within ten days from the date of his departure from the State send a report in writing to the said officer, either by post or otherwise, of the date of his departure, and as and when he comes back to the State he shall, within ten days, from the date of his arrival in the State, report the date of his arrival to the officer in-charge of the police station nearest to the place where he may be staying. 16. 16. In the above background, moot question that arises for our consideration is, whether need of attending pending court cases against externee would be a relevant circumstance to extern a particular person and would fall within the four corners of Section 56 or not. 17. It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that the words of statute must be understood in their natural, original or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to the contrary. Golden Rule is that words of statute must be given their original meaning when words are clear, plain and unambiguous. The effect to that meaning derived from the words needs to be given irrespective of the consequences. Needless to state that the words themselves best declare the intention of law givers. True, the object of legislation is to be ascertained before interpreting the provisions of the statute. 18. It is well known that the Court cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of provision is plain, clear and unambiguous. It cannot add or substract the words of a statute or read something into it which is not there. It cannot rewrite or recast legislation. The real intention of the law givers must be gathered from the language used in statute. 19. If we see statement of objects and reasons and provisions of Sections 56 to 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, it is crystal clear that these provisions are pure, simple and unambiguous. In this situation, legislative intent in enacting the provisions of Section 56 cannot be overlooked. If need of attending pending court cases against the externee and providing for appearance therein is added in Section 56, in our view, the same would lead to an unwarranted expression against the express intention of the legislature and would be a departure from the golden rule of interpretation of statute particularly when to legislate is the exclusive domain of law givers. 20. 20. So far as the grievance of the petitioner that non consideration of pendency of court cases, causes inconvenience and hardship to him, as every time he is required to seek permission from the authority to enter the place of restriction where his court cases are pending is concerned, we do not find substance in the same in view of the provisions of Section 63 of the Maharashtra Police Act. Section 63 reads thus :- 63. Temporary permission to enter or return to the area from which a person was directed to remove himself :- (1) The State Government or any officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf may, by order, permit any person in respect of whom an order has been made under sections 55, 56, 57 or 57A to enter or return for a temporary period to the area or such areas and any contiguous districts or part thereof, or to be specified area or areas, as the case may be, from which he was directed to remove himself, subject to such conditions as it or he may be general or special order specify and which such person accepts is and may, at any time, revoke any such permission. (2) In permitting a person such sub-section (1) to enter or return to the area or such areas and any contiguous districts or part thereof, or to the specific area or areas, as the case may be from which he was directed to remove himself, the State Government or such officer may require him to enter into bond with or without surety for the observance of the conditions imposed. (3) Any person permitted under sub-section (1) to enter or return to the area or such areas and any contiguous district or part thereof, or to the specified area or areas, as the case may be, from which he was directed to remove himself shall surrender himself at the time and place and to the authority specified in the order or in the order revoking the said order, as the case may be”. From the close reading of Section 63, it is apparent that authorities have been given ample powers to provide for contingencies like appearing in court cases. The Act, therefore, takes due care to meet with such a situation and the contingency where externee has to enter the area for attending the court cases. 21. From the close reading of Section 63, it is apparent that authorities have been given ample powers to provide for contingencies like appearing in court cases. The Act, therefore, takes due care to meet with such a situation and the contingency where externee has to enter the area for attending the court cases. 21. In the above premise, the view that we have taken can be crystallized by concluding that non consideration of pending court cases and not providing for appearance therein is not an instance of non application of mind vitiating the order of externment and need of attending pending court cases against the externee cannot be a relevant circumstance to extern a particular person. 22. For the view that we have taken, we affirm the view taken by the Division Bench in Pankaj Bhallaji Atram vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) as laying the correct proposition of law. We accordingly answer the question framed by us in Reference as above. 23. Before we part with the answer to the Reference, we record our appreciation for the efforts taken by learned Advocates S/Shri R.R. Vyas, R.P. Joshi, Amit Kinkhede and Rajat Maheshwari, who argued the matter with complete sincerity and hard work. As far as Shri S.M. Ukey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor is concerned, one may say that it was his duty to conduct the matter, but when the duty is performed with zeal, caution and care, then it should not go without appreciation. For his sincere efforts, we also record our appreciation for learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri S.M. Ukey. 24. By answering the Reference as above, we direct the Registry to place the matter before the Bench assigned to take Criminal Writ Petition No.386/2016 (Pankaj Bhallaji Atram vs. State of Maharashtra and others) so as to enable the Bench to dispose of the petition.