NARENDRA SINGH ALIAS NEERU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged his externment in pursuance of an order passed by D.C.P. on 6th July 1982 directing the externment of the petitioner for a period of' six months beyond the Union Territory of Delhi. He has also challenged the order of the Lt. Governor dated 6th August, 1982 by which his appeal was dismissed and the order for externment was confirmed.

(2.) Adimittedly, a notice under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act was served, upon the petitioner and admittedly the order of externment was passed under Secton 47 of the Delhi Police Act after affording him an opportunity to defend himself. It will be seen that D.C.P. as well as the appellate authority have based their conclusions on the statement of S.H.O. Delhi Cantt. and on the inferences available from the fact that the petitioner was involved in four criminal cases. It was on this basis that both D.C.P. and the appellate authority arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner i:; a desperate dangerous person and it must be assumed that the witnesses under these circumstances are not forthcoming to depose against him in public for fear of their own safety. After going through the record and after taking into consideration the contentions and counter contentions advanced I am of a definite opinion that the impugned orders are unsustainable and say so for the following reasons : Under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, the condition precedent for arriving at a satisfaction is firstly that the Commissioner of Police must be satisfied that the TT,ovements of' a person are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger of harm to a person or property; 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; that the person is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large in Delhi or in any part thereof hazardous to community or has been habitually intimidating the persons by acts of violence; after being satisfied that a person is of the above stated character the Commissioner has to furher satisfy himself that it is because of the dangerous and desperate disposition of the person that the witnesses are not prepared to come forward to depose in public against him for fear of safety of their person and property.

(3.) From a plain reading of the provision it will be seen that this is an extraordinary provision and has been enacted to meet an extraordinary situation. It does not exclude the normal proceedings under law. In my view the resort to this provision is only permissible if it is reasonably found that because of the desperate and dangerous nature of a person, it is not possible to deal with hKn under the normal procedure as the witnesses arc afraid of coming forward to depose in public against him. If it is found that the witnesses are forthcoming to depose in public against him, then despite his desperate and dangerous nature resort to Section 47 of the Dehii Police. Act is unwarranted.