Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Panwar @ Panwar vs State Of Delhi & Anr. on 9 December, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000 IIIAD Delhi 323, 84 (2000) DLT 765, 2000 (53) DRJ 133
Author: A D Singh
Bench: A D Singh, R Sodhi
ORDER
Anil Dev Singh, J.
1. Rule D.B.
2. 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.
3. From the impugned order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police dated August 30, 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 I.P.C. 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 appo- site to notice the cases on the basis of which the externment order has been passed. These are:- Sl.No. FIR No. Date U/S Police Station 1. 173 12.5.90 324/34 IPC Hari Nagar 2. 434 09.6.96 307/342 IPC Hari Nagar 3. 695 04.9.98 341/506/323/ Hari Nagar 34 IPC.
4. Insofar 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. Insofar 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. Insofar as case at serial No. 2 pertaining to FIR No. 434/96 is concerned undoubtedly the petitioner was acquitted after a full fledged trial. There- fore, 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. There- fore, 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 possi- ble 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 as 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.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order of externment as also the order passed by the appellate authority are quashed.
