GOVIND SARAN Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police. West District. New Delhi, dated September 14. 1999 whereby the petitioner was externed from the N.C.T. of Delhi for a period of six months. The petitioner also challenges the order of the appellate authority dated October 20, 1999 whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Additional D.C.P. dated September 14, 1999 was dismissed.

(2.) From the impugned order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police dated September 14, 1999 it is manifest that the petitioner has been externed, inter alia, on the ground of his involvement in three criminal cases punishable under Chapter XVI, XXII of the Indian Penal Code . It has also been observed therein that the witnesses were not willing to come forward to depose against the petitioner due to fear. At this stage it will be apposite to notice the cases on the basis of which the externment order has been passed. These are :- SI.No. FIR No. Date U/S Police Station 1. 549 29.9.93 304/34 Indian Penal Code Hari Nagar 2. 434 9.6.96 307/342 Indian Penal Code Hari Nagar 3. 695 04.9.98 341/506/323/34 Indian Penal Code Hari Nagar

(3.) As regards the first and second cases, it is not denied on both the sides that the petitioner was acquitted after a full-fledged trial. In so far as the third case is concerned, it is still pending. The Additional D.C.P. in his order has failed to specify the case or cases in which the witnesses did not come forward to depose against the petitioner, in so far as cases at serial nos. 1 and 2 pertaining to FIR Nos. 549/93 and 434/96 are concerned, undoubtedly the petitioner was acquitted after a full-fledged trial. Therefore, these were not the cases where the witnesses did not come forward to depose against the petitioner. We asked Mr. Mittal learned counsel for the State, to point out any observations of the trial courts to the effect that the witnesses did not come forward to depose against the petitioner. Mr. Mittal was not able to point out any such observations because of his fear. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Additional D.C.P. displays non-application of mind. We can appreciate a situation where an order of externment is passed against an externee on the ground that it is not possible to secure his conviction because of witnesses not coming forward to depose against him on account of fear and terror generated by him. But the case in hand is not of such a nature. Despite this fact, Mr. Mittal has advanced an omnibus submission that the additional D.C.P. was justified in passing the order as the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner. We tire unable to appreciate the argument for reasons noted above. In the circumstances, therefore, the Additional D.C.P. was nol right in passing the impugned order.