NIRMAL SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of a notice under section 47/50 of the Delhi Police Act by which the petitioner was informed by Shri Ajay Chadha, D.C.P., West District that since he was found involved in a case of robbery and since his movements and acts are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property and that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against him due to apprehension in respect of their personal safety and the safety of their property, he was called upon to show cause why he should not be externed from the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of two years.

(2.) A plain reading of section 47 of the Delhi Police Act clearly indicates that for service of a valid notice against a person under section 47 there must be certain conditions in existence. These conditions are that the person is so dangerous and desperate as to render his being at large in Delhi or in any part thereof hazardous to the community; or has been found habitually intimidating other persons by acts of violence or by show of force; or habitually commits affray or breach of peace or riot, or habitually makes forcible collection of subscription or threatens people for illegal pecuniary gain for himself or for others, or has been habitually passing indecent remarks on women and girls, or teasing them by overtures. If a person is found to be indulging in the aforesaid acts of commission and it is also found, that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such persons for fear of their own safety and the safety of their property that justification for proceeding against such person under section 47/50 of the Delhi Police Act will be deemed to be in existence. That a person is so dangerous and desperate as to render his being at large harmful or dangerous to the community cannot be born out of the imagination of the concerned authority, but there must be basis for such observations.

(3.) In the present case the petitioner is involved in a case under section 362, IPC. I am told that there are. three independent witnesses in the case and even though the case has gone to the court the witnesses have not so far been examined. Admittedly, three independent witnesses have been cited as witnesses which shows that there has been no unwillingness on the part of the public witnesses to come forward and tender evidence against the petitioner. On the basis of the single case mentioned in the notice it cannot be said that the petitioner is either dangerous or desperate. I find absolutely no merit in the petition as in my view on the basis of the facts mentioned in the notice there is no justification for the concerned authority to proceed against the petitioner. The petition is allowed and the impugned notice is quashed.