Acts Of Repeatedly Indulging In Bootlegging And Illegal Sale of Liquor Cause Alarm Or Danger To Society: Delhi HC Refuses To Quash Order Of Externment
|The Delhi High Court refused to quash an order of externment while noting that acts of repeatedly indulging in bootlegging and illegal sale of liquor cause alarm or danger to society.
The Court said that it cannot be ignored that bootlegging and illegal sale of liquor, contrary to the provisions of the Delhi Excise Act is a big menace to society and needs to be curbed with a heavy hand.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition seeking quashing of the impugned order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police which had externed the Petitioner for two years. The Petition also challenged the Appellate Order passed by the Lieutenant Governor, NCT of Delhi, which reduced the externment period from two years to one year.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed, “Merely because the aforesaid cases under the Delhi Excise Act are pending trial or may be based largely on the evidence of police officials, is not legitimate ground to interfere in the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Competent Authority. The acts of repeatedly indulging in bootlegging and illegal sale of liquor, on face of record, cause alarm or danger to the society at large and reflect that the petitioner is of desperate and dangerous character.”
Advocate Mir Akhtar Hussain appeared for the Appellant and ASC Yasir Rauf Ansari appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
In the present case, externment proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner through a show-cause notice under Section 47 read with Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, based on her involvement in three FIRs under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act. The Petitioner argued that the cases were falsely planted and did not justify externment. She also pointed out that Section 47 requires three cases to be registered within one year, while her cases were filed in three different years. During the proceedings, a supplementary notice was issued citing three additional FIRs. Without further defence, the Petitioner was externed for two years. On Appeal, the externment period was reduced to one year by the Lieutenant Governor, NCT of Delhi.
The Court observed, “Externment proceeding is not a prosecution for offences in a strict sense but is a measure to prevent the repeated commission of offences by the proposed externee and to break the nexus.”
“The same is resorted to in the discerning few cases where the witnesses are not forthcoming to depose against a desperate criminal on account of apprehension to their safety. The section itself reflects that the provision is to be used under extraordinary circumstances to curb lawless elements in the society.”, the Court added.
The Court mentioned the Supreme Court decision in State of NCT of Delhi and Another v. Sanjeev alias Bittoo, Criminal Appeal No.498/2005 where according to the Court it was held, “Court should be slow to interfere in such matters relating to externment of administrative functions unless the decision is illegal, irrational or suffers from procedural impropriety.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Monika v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:7605)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Mir Akhtar Hussain and Sonia Goswami
Respondent: ASC Yasir Rauf Ansari, Advocates Alok Sharma and Vasu Agarwal