( 1 ) RULE D. B.

( 2 ) THE Deputy Commissioner of Police District, New Delhi served the petitioner with a notice under section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 calling upon him to show cause why he should not be externed from the union Territory of Delhi for a period of 2 years under section 47 of the Delhi Police Act,

( 3 ) THE relevant part of the notice is as follows :

"you are found to have been involved in the following cases committing offences punishable under Excise Act. Arms Act and committing offences of keeping/receiving stolen property, there are reasonable grounds for believing that you are engaged in the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVII of Indian Penal Code. Your movements and acts causing or are calculated to cause alarm danger and harm to the persons and property 285. htm All that has been mentioned above makes out a case under section 47 (a) (b) D. P. Act, 1978 against you. "

( 4 ) ON 8th December, 1982 the Deputy Commissioner passed an order externing the petitioner for period of one year from the date of issuance of the order.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenged the legality and vires of the aforesaid orders.

( 6 ) THE petitioner has stated that out of the 14 cases mentioned in the show cause notice he was acquitted in 8 cases and in one case under section 411 Indian Penal Code he was discharged and that only one case under the Arms Act is pending against him. The petitioner has further stated that out of the 14 cases mentioned 12 cases relate to the period prior to 1975 and that there are only 2 cases of the year 1982 out of which in one case he has. been discharged and that the Deputy Commissioner of police has gravely erred in taking into consideration stale and irrelevant material.

( 7 ) THE Deputy Commissioner in the additional affidavit dated 2nd August 1983 has not disputed that out of 14 cases the petitioner was either acquitted or discharged in 9 cases. We may add that out of the 14 cases 9 cases are under the Excise Act. 4 cases under the Arms Act and one case under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was convicted in the cases under the Excise Act (FIR No. 874/69 and FIR No. 357/70) in the year 1969 and 1970 and in these two cases he was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 150. 00 and Rs. 100. 00 respectively. The other two convictions under the Excise Act were recorded in 1977 (FIR No. 657 of 1972) and FIR No. 857 of 1974 ). The petitioner in the said two cases was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months and also to a fine.

( 8 ) SHRI Nand Kishore, Learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that for the application of section 47 of the Police Act besides the consitions mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (e) the Commissioner has to befurther satisfied that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such a person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. The counsel points out that in the show cause notice no such satisfaction has been recorded and, therefore the order of externment is not legal and valid. Shri Nand Kishore further contended that out of the 14 cases mentioned in the show cause notice the petitioner was acquitted discharged in 9 cases and that the Deputy Commissioner of Police was not justified in initiating the proceedings on the basis of cases in which the petitioner had been acquitted. He further contended that out of 14 cases, 12 cases relate to the period prior to 1975 and the Deputy Commissioner was not justified in taking into consideration old and stale material. Shri Kishore further contended that none of the cases mentioned in the show cause fall within the ambit of section 47 (b) and also makes the order dated 8th December 1982 illegal.

( 9 ) WE are inclined to agree in the contentions urged by Mr. Nand Kishore. We are of the view that the cases in which the petitioner was tried a