PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter called the Act) was enacted with the purpose lo bridge the conflicting relationship between the police and the Magistracy. It was difficult for the police to handle certain law and order problems. To overcome these problems it was fell expedient to provide Police Commissioner system in Delhi. Therefore, the Act was enacted which came in force on 1st day of July, 1978. The Bombay Police Act, 1951 was the tested testament for the Police Commissioner system. Therefore, number of provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 have been incorporated in the Act, thus most of the provisions of the Act and in particular Sections 50 and 47 of the Act are analogous to the provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. One of the time tested measure to prevent commission of crime is to snap criminal links of certain class of persons wh other persons having criminal bent of mind. Section 47 of the Act deals with the removal of persons about to commit offences. Under this Section Commissioner of Police has been empowered with vide powers but betore doing so the Commissioner of Police has to satisfy that the criteria laid down under the Act has been complied with. He has to ensure that notice in writing is issued to the person concerned informing him in general nature the material allegations levelled against him. He has also to be given him reasonable opportunity of tendering his explanation in response to the notice. So the twin criteria provided under the Act have lo be complied with before the Commissioner of Police can justify his action under Section 47 of the Act.

(2.) Keeping the above principle in mind, we have to see whether in the facts of this case the twin criteria has been complied with. For that we may have quick glance to the facts of this case as well as relevant provisions of the Act. 3.1 Facts as alleged in notice are that the Additional, Deputy Commissioner of Police found that Pratap Singh, the petitioner herein was involved in as many as 16 cases under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC). <FRM>JUDGEMENT_30_DRJ54_2000Html1.htm</FRM>3.2. On the basis of his involvement in those cases, the concerned Externing Authority formed tentative opinion that the movement and acts of the petitioner were causing alarm. His movements were dangerous and harmful to the person and property of the public at large. The concerned Externing Authority also formed tentative opinion that petitioner was desperate and dangerous as to render being at large in Delhi or in any part thereof hazardous to the community. Thus proceedings under Section 47 of the Act were initiated against him. Accordingly order was passed on 26th October, 1998. Pursuant thereto, notice under Section 50 of the Act was issued directing the petitioner to put in appearance and File his reply to the said notice. Petitioner availed the opportunity. However, the Externing Authority on the basis of the material available on record passed order on 21st January, 1999 under Section 47 of the Act, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be externed for a period of two years from the National Capital Territory of Delhi with immediate effect. Petitoner filed appeal against the said order to the Lt. Governor. By the impugned order dated 24th March, 1999 Lt. Governor dismissed his appeal.

(3.) This petitioner has felt aggrieved against the impugned order and has assailed the same primarily on the following amongst other grounds; (i) there was no applicalion of mind on the part of the concerned Externing Authority; (ii) Externing Authority took into consideration extraneous circumstances for externing Authority considered such of the cases which were not registered against the petitioner and/or had been registered outside Delhi within the jurisdiction of the Stale of U.P. and Haryana where Commissioner of Police, Delhi had no jurisdiction; (iii) that the provisions of Section 47 of the Act are violative of Articles, 14, 19 and 21 of the (constitution of India. There has been violation of the provisions of Article 22(3) and 5 of the Constitution. Even otherwise the provisions of Sections 47 and 50 of the Act are draconian in nature and curtail the personal liberty of an individual which is guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, (iv) that material had not been supplied on the basis of which the Externing Authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been engaged or was about to beengaged in commission of any offence; (v) lhal the procedure followed was neither fair nor just nor reasonable; (vii) that the right of hearing as prescribed under Section 50 of the Act is farce. Moreover, such of the material against a person cannot be used if in those cases the person had already been acquilted by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This tantamounts to sitting over the judgment of a Court which is not permissible under law.