SANJEEV PANWAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule D.B. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, West District, New Delhi, dated August 30, 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 August 30, 1999 was dismissed.

(2.) From the impugned order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police dated August 30, 1999 it is manifest that the petitioner has .been extemed, inter alia, on the ground of his involvement in three criminal cases punishable under Chap- ter 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 opposite to notice the cases on the basis of which the externment order has been passed. These are:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_133_DRJ53_2000Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) In so far as the first case is concerned, the matter was compromised and the petitioner was acquitted. As regards the second case, 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 case at serial No.2. pertaining to FIR No. 434/96 is concerned, undoubtedly the petitioner was acquitted after a full-fledged trial. Therefore, it was not a case 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 observation of the trial court to the effect that the witnesses did not come forward to depose against the petitioner because of his fear. Mr. Mittal was not able to point out any such observation. 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 the 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 are unable to appreciate the argument for reasons noted above. In the circumstances, therefore, the Additional D.C.P. was not right in passing the impugned order.