SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Del) 283

High Court Of Delhi
KAUSHALYA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 332 of 1987
Decided On : 08/04/1987

Advocates Appeared:
R.P.Lao, S.C.SINGHA

The Commissioner of Police can delegate the powers and duties to the Deputy Commissioners of Police or the Additional Deputy Commissioners of Police or Assistant Commissioners of Police to exercise such of the powers (except the power to make regulations) and perform such of the duties of the Commissioner of Police and within such local limits as may be specified in such orders.

Headnote:

DELHI POLICE ACT - SECTION 47 - EXTERNMENT - JURISDICTION - DELEGATION OF POWERS - VALIDITY OF EXTERNMENT ORDER - CONSIDERATION OF CASES IN WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS ACQUITTED - RECORDING OF STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES IN CAMERA - LEGALITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Kaushalya, challenged the legality of an externment order passed against her under section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi, for a period of two years. The order was passed on the ground that the petitioner's movements and acts were causing or were calculated to cause alarm, danger, or harm to person or property.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Deputy Commissioner of Police had the jurisdiction to pass an externment order from the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi, as the Commissioner of Police had delegated the powers to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and Additional Deputy Commissioners of Police to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Commissioner of Police in the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi.

Issues: 1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Police had the jurisdiction to pass an externment order from the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi? 2. Whether the authority could consider cases in which the petitioner had been acquitted in passing the order under section 47 of the Act? 3. Whether the recording of the statements of witnesses in camera was legal?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Commissioner of Police had delegated the powers to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and Additional Deputy Commissioners of Police to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Commissioner of Police in the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi, and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Police had the jurisdiction to pass an externment order from the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi. 2. The court held that the mere fact that in some of the cases mentioned in the notice the petitioner was acquitted would not be enough to hold that those cases cannot be taken into consideration in passing the order under section 47 of the Act. 3. The court held that the recording of the statements of witnesses in camera was legal, as it was necessary to protect the witnesses from being threatened or overawed.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order was valid and legal.

Aggarwal J

( 1rule DB )

( 2 ) BY. means of this writ petition under Article 226 of of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Kaushalya has challenged the legality of the order dated 25th June, 1987 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi, externing her under section 47 of the Delhi Police Act (hereinafter for the. sake of brevity called the Act ) from the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of two years.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts are that on 11th September, 1985 the Station House Officer, Delhi Cantt. sent a proposal to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District for externment of the petitioner under section 48 (f) of the Act. it was stated in the proposal that the petitioner who is a resident of RZ-326, Brahampuri Pankha Road, New Delhi, is a known bootlegger and is a habitual seller of illicit liquor, charas, heroin, etc. and that she had been twice convicted for offences under section 61 (1) 14 of the Punjab Excise Act and is involved in a number of cases as per the details given therein. It was further stated that the petitioner is a bad character of the police station and is a history sheeter and her name is borne in bundle A. It is further stated that the activities of the proposed externee are alarming and there is immediate need to restrict her activities in the Union Territories of Delhi Cantt. and that action be taken for her externment from the Union Territory of Delhi for at least one year. The particulars of the cases in which the petitioner was alleged to be involved are as follows :

( 4 ) AFTER the receipt of the above proposal, the Deputy Commissioner of Police issued a notice under section 47150 of the Act to the petitioner to show cause as to why she be not externed from the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of two years. The petitioner did not produce any evidence in support of her defence but she submitted her arguments in writing. The Deputy Commissioner of Police after a consideration of the material placed before him came to the conclusion that it was a fit case to take action under section 47 of the Act and passed an order for the externment of the petitioner from the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of two years.

( 5 ) WE may mention here that section 51 of the Act provides for an appeal to the Administrator against orders passed under sections 46, 47 and 48 of the Act. The petitioner has approached this court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal. We at the very threshold of the hearing of the petition put to Bawa Gurcharan Singh, Jearned counsel for the petitioner, as to why the petition be entertained without the petitioner first availing of the statutory remedy of appeal. Bawa Gurcharan Singh contended that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, was competent only to exercise jurisdiction within the local limits of his jurisdiction and that he could not have passed the externment order from the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi. Since the above contention of Bawa Gurcharan Singh went to the very root of the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Police for initiating action for the externment of the petitioner from the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi we issued notice to the State for showing cause wily the petition be not admitted.

( 6 ) THE Delhi Administration through Shri R. P. Lao. additional standing counsel, has assailed the validity of the above conlention and contended that under section 8 (2) of the Act Shri J. N. Chaturvedi, Commissioner of Police, by his orders dated 6th October, 1978 and 28th February, 1979 had conferred on the Deputy Commissioners of Police and Additional Deputy Commissioners of Police all the powers (except the power to make regulation) and perform the duties of the Commissioner of Police in the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi and by virtue of the powers conferred under the said two order



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top