Munshi Ram Vs. Lt. Governor, Union Territory of Delhi and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/689516
SubjectCriminal
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnApr-27-1987
Case NumberCriminal Writ Appeal No. 87 of 1987
Judge R.N. Aggarwal and; Jagdish Chandra, Advs.
Reported in1988CriLJ1089; 32(1987)DLT243
ActsDelhi Police Act, 1861 - Sections 47
AppellantMunshi Ram
RespondentLt. Governor, Union Territory of Delhi and anr.
Advocates: O.N. Vohra and; S.T. Singh, Advs
Excerpt:
criminal - externment - section 47 of delhi police act, 1861 - order of externment passed against petitioner - evident from show cause notice that authority taking into consideration both past and present criminal activities of petitioner - not necessary to mention details of earlier criminal record in notice which had ended upon execution of bond to maintain peace and good behavior - appellate authority in its order observed that petitioner running gambling den - such activity harmful to society - person running gambling den definitely man of desperate and dangerous character - held, no interference required with order of externment. - - 5000.00 with one surety in the like amount undertaking to maintain peace and good behavior. ganj, new delhi shall so conduct himself as to prevent voilence and alarm and not to indulge himself in criminal activities and to maintain peace and good behavior for which he is called upon to enter into a bond in the sum of rs. 5000.00with one surety in the like amount binding himself to this effect for a period of one year from the date of this order and to forfeit in default thereof the said sum of rs. the relevant portion of the said order reads as follows :after consideration of the evidence on record and in view of your undertaking you were provided a chance to improve your behavior after entering into a bond for a period of one year which was accepted on 28.8.85.that you were directed to keep peace and good behavior and to prevent voilence and alarm but you failed to desist yourself from criminal activities after that. it was in the back-ground of the above criminal activities that that action under sections 47/50 of the delhi police act was initiated against the petitioner and ultimately of 28/08/1985 he was bound down to maintain peace and good behavior and the required bonds were furnished by the petitioner. the notice dated 18/06/1986specifically mentions that the petitioner had given a bond on 28/08/1985undertaking to maintain peace and good behavior but he had failed to keep up the undertaking given by him and he had continued the criminal activities. it was not necessary to mention in the notice the details of the earlier criminal record which had ended upon the petitioner executing a bond to maintain peace and good behavior (bond dated 28/08/1985). the renewed criminal activities of the petitioner were specifically stated in the notice. the fresh criminal activities of the petitioner, in my opinion, would definitely fall under sub-clause (a) as well asunder sub-clause (c)(i). the appellate authority has in its order observed thatthe petitioner is running a gambling den and as such his activities are certainly harmful to the society.r.n. aggarwal, j.(1) this order be read in continuation of our orderdated 27/02/1987.(2) the petitioner has a long criminal history. he started his criminal career in june 1961 and continued it till 1983. during the aforesaid period the petitioner was involved in as many as 32 criminal cases, and they include cases of all kinds including one case under section 302 of the indian penal code.(3) notice under section 47 read with section 50 of the delhi police act was given to the petitioner to show cause why he be not externed from the union territory of delhi. on 28/08/1985 an order was passed by the deputy commissioner of police requiring the petitioner to enter into a bond in the sum of rs. 5000.00 with one surety in the like amount undertaking to maintain peace and good behavior. the operative portion of that order reads asfollows: 'now, thereforee, i order that shri munshi ram s/o holia ram r/o 5445, ladoo ghati, p. ganj, new delhi shall so conduct himself as to prevent voilence and alarm and not to indulge himself in criminal activities and to maintain peace and good behavior for which he is called upon to enter into a bond in the sum of rs. 5000.00with one surety in the like amount binding himself to this effect for a period of one year from the date of this order and to forfeit in default thereof the said sum of rs. 5000.00with one surety in the likeamount. the contravention of this direction is punishable under the provisions of law, the bond furnished by him is placed on file.file is consigned to record.'(4) on 18/06/1986, the deputy commissioner of police, central districtdelhi, issued notice to the petitioner under section 50 of the delhi police act requiring him to show cause as to why he be not externed from the unionterritory of delhi. the relevant portion of the said order reads as follows : 'after consideration of the evidence on record and in view of your undertaking you were provided a chance to improve your behavior after entering into a bond for a period of one year which was accepted on 28.8.85.that you were directed to keep peace and good behavior and to prevent voilence and alarm but you failed to desist yourself from criminal activities after that.it is evident from the record that you have been continuing your criminal activities and engaged yourself in the commission of offences for which the following cases were registered against you after the above said undertaking : 1.fir no. 1301 dt. 2.11.85 u/s 12/9/55, g. act, p.s. paharganj.2. fir no. 338 dt. 9.5.86. u/s -do- -do-3. fir no. 396 dt. 29.5.86 u/s -do- -do- that the perusal of the above cases and material on record reveal that your activities/movements are great menace and that you are so desperate and dangerous as to render your being at large in the u.t. delhi or any part thereof hazardous to the community.from the material on record, further it reveals that the witnesses, are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against you by reasons of apprehension on their part as regards to the safety of their person or property.' (5) the petitioner appeared and showed cause against the notice. the deputy commissioner of police on a consideration of all the material placed before him passed an order for the externment of the petitioner from the union territory of delhi for a period of one year. against the aforesaid order the petitioner filed an appeal to the lt. governor but his appeal was rejected by the lt. governor on 12/02/1987. para 3 of the order of thelt. governor is relevant and it reads as follows : 'i have carefully considered the points raised and gone through therecords. from the list of cases made the basis for externment proceedings, it is revealed that appellant was convicted in a gambling case in 1972. after this conviction he lad also been involved in the same offence though stood acquitted on 30.9.1977. he was also being tried in the similar cases registered against him on 2.11.1985,9.5.1986 and 29.5.86. the commission of offences the gambling act leads to infer that the appellant is running a den and as such these activities certainly harm the interest of the society. though the cases under the gambling act may not be menacing to the general public yet in the case of appellant, i do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. earlier order binding down the appellant does not absolve him. the past records as placed on the file mention the involvement of the appellant in as many as 32 cases under several crimes including the gambling act; some of the cases are punishable under chapter xvi and xvii of the indian penal code and as such the proceedings for externment of the appellant being based on the past involvement coupled with the present conduct of the appellant cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of the act. witnesses do not wish to come forward openly to depose against a person who creates terror in the mind of the peaceful citizens due to apprehension to their safety, with this view of the matter, i find that there is sufficient material against the appellant and the deputy commissioner of police has rightly externed the appellant from the union territory of delhi in terms of the provisions of section 47 of the act for a period of one year. in end result, the appeal fails.'(6) shri vohra, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that thelt. governor was not justified in taking into consideration the cases which had ended in the execution of a bond by the petitioner on 28/08/1985. shri vohra further contended that the three cases mentioned in the notice are under the gambling act and these cases would not fall under clause (a) and clause(c)(i) of section 47 of the delhi police act, and these cases could not be made the basis for an order of externment. shri vohra further contended that though the appellate authority was of the view that the cases under the gambling act may not be menacing to the general public yet the appellate authority held the activities of the petitioner to be harmful and against the interest of the society. shri vohra further contended that the 32 cases mentioned in the earlier notice for externment were not mentioned in the notice dated 18/06/1986 and, thereforee, they could not be relied upon by the appellate authority in upholding the externment order(7) i am unable to agree with the contentions of shri vohra. this case has to be viewed in the background of the entire criminal activities ofthe petitioner. as already noticed the petitioner commenced his criminal activities in 1961 and between 1961 and 1983 he was involved in as many as 32 cases and some of the cases involved serious offences. the petitioner in his rejoinder admits that in the case under section 302 of the indian penal code he was convicted under section 302 indian penal code and in appeal the offence was converted into section 304 part i and he was sentenced to7 years rigorous imprisonment. he further admits to have been convicted in3 more cases. it was in the back-ground of the above criminal activities that that action under sections 47/50 of the delhi police act was initiated against the petitioner and ultimately of 28/08/1985 he was bound down to maintain peace and good behavior and the required bonds were furnished by the petitioner. the petitioner soon thereafter was again caught in cases underthe gambling act; the first case was registered against him on 2/11/1985, the second case on 9/05/1986 and the third case on 29/05/1986.in view of the fresh criminal activities of the petitioner the deputy commissioner of police again decided to initiate action against the petitioner under section 47(a)(b)(c)(i) of the delhi police act. the notice dated 18/06/1986specifically mentions that the petitioner had given a bond on 28/08/1985undertaking to maintain peace and good behavior but he had failed to keep up the undertaking given by him and he had continued the criminal activities.the notice thereafter mentions the three cases under the gambling act registered against the petitioner. the notice further mentions that the aforesaid activities/movements are a menace and the petitioner is a desperate and dangerous character and that his being left at large in the union territory of delhi is hazardous to the community. the notice further records that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him because they apprehend danger to their person or property.(8) a reading of the notice on the whole could have left the petitioner in no doubt that the authority is taking into consideration both the past and present criminal activities of the petitioner. it was not necessary to mention in the notice the details of the earlier criminal record which had ended upon the petitioner executing a bond to maintain peace and good behavior (bond dated 28/08/1985). the renewed criminal activities of the petitioner were specifically stated in the notice. the fresh criminal activities of the petitioner, in my opinion, would definitely fall under sub-clause (a) as well asunder sub-clause (c)(i). the appellate authority has in its order observed thatthe petitioner is running a gambling den and as such his activities are certainly harmful to the society. any man who runs a gambling den his activities are bound to cause alarm and danger and they would be harmful to the person and property of persons who come and gamble in that den. it is a matter of common knowledge that in gambling dens all sorts of activities and crimes goon. to my mind, a man who runs a gambling den he is definitely a man of desperate and dangerous character and his being at large would be hazardous to the community.(9) shri vohra referred us to a judgment of this court reported as ravi kumar v .deputy commissioner ofpolice, west district, delhi. : 25(1984)dlt285 . i have read the cited authority and, in my opinion, it is not applicable to the case in hand.(10) on a very careful consideration of the entire matter, i am of the view that it is not a fit case for interference.
Judgment:

R.N. Aggarwal, J.

(1) This order be read in continuation of our orderdated 27/02/1987.

(2) The petitioner has a long criminal history. He started his criminal career in June 1961 and continued it till 1983. During the aforesaid period the petitioner was involved in as many as 32 criminal cases, and they include cases of all kinds including one case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3) Notice under section 47 read with section 50 of the Delhi Police Act was given to the petitioner to show cause why he be not externed from the Union Territory of Delhi. On 28/08/1985 an order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police requiring the petitioner to enter into a bond in the sum of Rs. 5000.00 with one surety in the like amount undertaking to maintain peace and good behavior. The operative portion of that order reads asfollows:

'NOW, thereforee, I order that Shri Munshi Ram s/o Holia Ram r/o 5445, Ladoo Ghati, P. Ganj, New Delhi shall so conduct himself as to prevent voilence and alarm and not to indulge himself in criminal activities and to maintain peace and good behavior for which he is called upon to enter into a bond in the sum of Rs. 5000.00with one surety in the like amount binding himself to this effect for a period of one year from the date of this order and to forfeit in default thereof the said sum of Rs. 5000.00with one surety in the likeamount. The contravention of this direction is punishable under the provisions of law, The bond furnished by him is placed on file.File is consigned to record.'

(4) On 18/06/1986, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central districtDelhi, issued notice to the petitioner under section 50 of the Delhi Police Act requiring him to show cause as to why he be not externed from the UnionTerritory of Delhi. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows :

'AFTER consideration of the evidence on record and in view of your undertaking you were provided a chance to improve your behavior after entering into a bond for a period of one year which was accepted on 28.8.85.That you were directed to keep peace and good behavior and to prevent voilence and alarm but you failed to desist yourself from criminal activities after that.It is evident from the record that you have been continuing your criminal activities and engaged yourself in the commission of offences for which the following cases were registered against you after the above said undertaking :

1.FIR No. 1301 dt. 2.11.85 u/s 12/9/55, G. Act, P.S. Paharganj.2. Fir No. 338 dt. 9.5.86. u/s -do- -do-3. Fir No. 396 dt. 29.5.86 u/s -do- -do- THAT the perusal of the above cases and material on record reveal that your activities/movements are great menace and that you are so desperate and dangerous as to render your being at large in the U.T. Delhi or any part thereof hazardous to the community.From the material on record, further it reveals that the witnesses, are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against you by reasons of apprehension on their part as regards to the safety of their person or property.'

(5) The petitioner appeared and showed cause against the notice. The Deputy Commissioner of Police on a consideration of all the material placed before him passed an order for the externment of the petitioner from the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of one year. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner filed an appeal to the Lt. Governor but his appeal was rejected by the Lt. Governor on 12/02/1987. Para 3 of the order of theLt. Governor is relevant and it reads as follows :

'I have carefully considered the points raised and gone through therecords. From the list of cases made the basis for externment proceedings, it is revealed that appellant was convicted in a gambling case in 1972. After this conviction he Lad also been involved in the same offence though stood acquitted on 30.9.1977. He was also being tried in the similar cases registered against him on 2.11.1985,9.5.1986 and 29.5.86. The commission of offences the Gambling Act leads to infer that the appellant is running a den and as such these activities certainly harm the interest of the society. Though the cases under the Gambling Act may not be menacing to the general public yet in the case of appellant, I do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. Earlier order binding down the appellant does not absolve him. The past records as placed on the file mention the involvement of the appellant in as many as 32 cases under several crimes including the Gambling Act; some of the cases are punishable under Chapter Xvi and Xvii of the Indian Penal Code and as such the proceedings for externment of the appellant being based on the past involvement coupled with the present conduct of the appellant cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Witnesses do not wish to come forward openly to depose against a person who creates terror in the mind of the peaceful citizens due to apprehension to their safety, With this view of the matter, I find that there is sufficient material against the appellant and the Deputy Commissioner of Police has rightly externed the appellant from the Union Territory of Delhi in terms of the provisions of section 47 of the Act for a period of one year. In end result, the appeal fails.'

(6) Shri Vohra, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that theLt. Governor was not justified in taking into consideration the cases which had ended in the execution of a bond by the petitioner on 28/08/1985. Shri Vohra further contended that the three cases mentioned in the notice are under the Gambling Act and these cases would not fall under clause (a) and clause(c)(i) of section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, and these cases could not be made the basis for an order of externment. Shri Vohra further contended that though the appellate authority was of the view that the cases under the Gambling Act may not be menacing to the general public yet the appellate authority held the activities of the petitioner to be harmful and against the interest of the society. Shri Vohra further contended that the 32 cases mentioned in the earlier notice for externment were not mentioned in the notice dated 18/06/1986 and, thereforee, they could not be relied upon by the appellate authority in upholding the externment order

(7) I am unable to agree with the contentions of Shri Vohra. This case has to be viewed in the background of the entire criminal activities ofthe petitioner. As already noticed the petitioner commenced his criminal activities in 1961 and between 1961 and 1983 he was involved in as many as 32 cases and some of the cases involved serious offences. the petitioner in his rejoinder admits that in the case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code he was convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code and in appeal the offence was converted into section 304 Part I and he was sentenced to7 years rigorous imprisonment. He further admits to have been convicted in3 more cases. It was in the back-ground of the above criminal activities that that action under sections 47/50 of the Delhi Police Act was initiated against the petitioner and ultimately of 28/08/1985 he was bound down to maintain peace and good behavior and the required bonds were furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner soon thereafter was again caught in cases underthe Gambling Act; the first case was registered against him on 2/11/1985, the second case on 9/05/1986 and the third case on 29/05/1986.In view of the fresh criminal activities of the petitioner the Deputy Commissioner of Police again decided to initiate action against the petitioner under section 47(a)(b)(c)(i) of the Delhi Police Act. The notice dated 18/06/1986specifically mentions that the petitioner had given a bond on 28/08/1985undertaking to maintain peace and good behavior but he had failed to keep up the undertaking given by him and he had continued the criminal activities.The notice thereafter mentions the three cases under the Gambling Act registered against the petitioner. The notice further mentions that the aforesaid activities/movements are a menace and the petitioner is a desperate and dangerous character and that his being left at large in the Union Territory of Delhi is hazardous to the community. The notice further records that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him because they apprehend danger to their person or property.

(8) A reading of the notice on the whole could have left the petitioner in no doubt that the authority is taking into consideration both the past and present criminal activities of the petitioner. It was not necessary to mention in the notice the details of the earlier criminal record which had ended upon the petitioner executing a bond to maintain peace and good behavior (bond dated 28/08/1985). The renewed criminal activities of the petitioner were specifically stated in the notice. The fresh criminal activities of the petitioner, in my opinion, would definitely fall under sub-clause (a) as well asunder sub-clause (c)(i). The appellate authority has in its order observed thatthe petitioner is running a gambling den and as such his activities are certainly harmful to the society. Any man who runs a gambling den his activities are bound to cause alarm and danger and they would be harmful to the person and property of persons who come and gamble in that den. It is a matter of common knowledge that in gambling dens all sorts of activities and crimes goon. To my mind, a man who runs a gambling den he is definitely a man of desperate and dangerous character and his being at large would be hazardous to the community.

(9) Shri Vohra referred us to a judgment of this court reported as Ravi Kumar v .Deputy Commissioner ofPolice, West District, Delhi. : 25(1984)DLT285 . I have read the cited authority and, in my opinion, it is not applicable to the case in hand.

(10) On a very careful consideration of the entire matter, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for interference.