Back
High Court Of Delhi
SURJIT SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 641 of 1997
Decided On : 03/16/1998
Section 47 — Externment — Procedure — Recording of evidence in camera is in consonance with the object of taking preventive measures in cases where the ordinary procedure under Criminal Law cannot be effective — Order of externment on the basis of in camera evidence, affirmed.
Held:
The special provisions now under examination proceed on the basis that the person dealt with under any of the Sections 55, 56 and 57 is of such a character as not to permit the ordinary laws of the land being put in motion in the ordinary way, namely, of examining witnesses in open court who should be cross-examined by the party against whom they were deposing. The provisions we are now examining are plainly intended to be used in special cases requiring special treatment, that is, cases which cannot be dealt with under the preventive sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is thus manifest from above that the intention of the legislature while enacting the provisions of Sections 47 & 48 of the Act was to give a handle in the hands of the police to deal with the desperate type of criminals who, in their opinion, cannot be dealt with in the open courts in accordance with the ordinary provisions of laws of the land. The said preventive measures in the form of Sections 47 & 48 are resorted to in those discerning few cases where the witnesses are not available to depose to against the desperate type of criminal on account of an apprehension to their person and property. In such type of cases the police officers can deal with them in accordance with the provisions of Sections 47 & 48 of the Act i.e. they can be directed to remove themselves outside Delhi for a particular period so that they may not cause harm, danger to the person and the property of the people of Delhi. In case the contention of the learned counsel is upheld that the names of the witnesses and the material which is to be used against a particular person should be furnished to him in that eventuality the very purpose of enactment of Section 47 of the Act would be frustrated because, as observed above, the said Section is meant to deal with desperate type of criminals, under extraordinary situations and circumstances, who do not allow witnesses to appear against them and the witnesses do not come forward to depose against them for fear of reprisal.
Admittedly the petitioners in the instant cases are bad characters of the area. While the petitioner Surjeet Singh is involved in as many as 10 cases under the Punjab Excise Act and also in a case which pertains to police station Panipat under Sections 279/337/427/467/468/47J IPC, petitioner Niyamti is involved in as many as 30 cases under the Punjab Excise Act and one case under the NDPS Act. Selling of illicit liquor to the members of the public is detrimental to their health, safety and culture. It may also lead to the commission of the crimes. More often than not crimes are committed under the influence of liquor. A large number of persons died in Delhi itself after consuming illicit liquor. The people as per the impugned order are not likely to come forward to depose against the petitioners.
( 1 ) THESE are two connected petitions, being Crl. Writ Petition No. 583/97 ( Surjeet Singh v. State and another) and Crl. Writ Petition No. 641/97 ( Smt. Niyamti v. State and another ). The petitioners through the present petitions have taken exception to the externment orders dated April 8, 1997 and March 13, 1997 whereby the petitioners herein were directed to remove themselves beyond the limits of the National Capital Territory of Delhi for a period of two years from the date of issue of the said orders. They were further directed by the impugned orders not to enter or return to the National Capital Territory of Delhi within the aforementioned period of two years without the written permission of the competent authority.
( 2 ) SINCE common questions of law and fact are to be gone into in both the writ petitions I propose to dispose them of by one and the same judgment.
( 3 ) BRIEF facts which led to the presentation of petition No. 583/97 are that a proposal for the externment of the petitioner was put up before the Deputy Commissioner of Police by SHO PS Inderpuri through ACP, Naraina, on the ground that the petitioner was a desperate and dangerous type of person whose activities were causing alarm, danager and harm to the persons and property of the locality in the area of PS Inderpuri. The petitioner was not enjoying good reputation. He was also harbouring criminals at his residence. As a corollary of the above people were unwilling to come forward against him in the public or in the court on account of the apprehension to the safety of their person and property. The petitioner was a desperate criminal who earned his bread by way of commission of offences.
( 4 ) IN view of the above a notice dated November 27, 1996 under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act was served on the petitioner. In pursuance of the said notice the petitioner appeared before the Deputy Commissioner of Police. He was apprised of the contents of the notice. The petitioner was also asked to produce defence witneeses, if any.
( 5 ) THE learned D. C. P. after appraisal of the material which was placed by the SHO, PS Inderpuri, and consideration of the defence evidence came to the conclusion that it was a fit case for passing an externment order against the petitioner under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act ( hereinafter referred to as the act for the sake of reference ). Consequently, the petitioner was directed to remove himself from the limits of the National Capital Territory of Delhi for a period of two years.
( 6 ) THE petitioner, Niyamti has, on the other hand, challenged the externment order dated March 13, 1997 passed by Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, North District. Proposal for her externment was received from SHO, Prasad Nagar through ACP and was put up before the DCP on January 8, 1997. After going through the said proposal and examining the material on record, a notice for externment was issued to the petitioner Smt. Niyamti in terms of the provisions of Sections 47 and 50 of the Act. After a careful consideration of the material on record the petitioner was ordered to remove herself beyond the limits of the National Capital Territory of Delhi for a period of two years from the date of issue of the said orders.
( 7 ) THE petitioners challenged the above order before the Lt. Governor by way of appeals. Their appeals were dismissed vide judgment and order dated June 30,1997 and July 29, 1997 respectively. The petitioners in the above circumstances have approached this Court through the present writ petitions.
( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners Sodhi Teja Singh has vehemently contended that the impugned orders passed by the authorities referred to above are absolutely illegal and invalid. The petitioners were not afforded any opportunity to defend themselves. The petitioners are innocent persons. They have been falsely implicated by the police. They have so far not been convicted in any of the said cases which find
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
