Bootlegging and illegal sale of liquor is a big menace to society that needs to be curbed with a heavy hand, the Delhi High Court has said. The court made the observation while dismissing a petition by a woman challenging an externment order against her following FIRs under the Delhi Excise Act.
An additional deputy commissioner of police here had in February passed the externment order which directed the petitioner to "remove herself beyond the limits of NCT of Delhi" for a period of two years. The term was however reduced to one year by the Lieutenant Governor on appeal.
Stating that an externment proceeding is not for prosecution but to prevent the repeated commission of offences, Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said the cases against the petitioner reflected that she had a "dangerous" character" and the propensity to "unabatedly continue to indulge in the criminal offences" and her being in Delhi was "hazardous to the community".
"The acts of repeatedly indulging in bootlegging and illegal sale of liquor, on the face of the record, cause alarm or danger to the society at large and reflect that the petitioner is of desperate and dangerous character. In view of above, petitioner being at large in NCT of Delhi or in any part thereof, is apparently hazardous to the community," said the judge in the order passed on October 3.
"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 the society and needs to be curbed with a heavy hand... The petition is without any merits and is accordingly dismissed," stated the order.
The petitioner challenged the externment order on the ground that such proceedings could not have been initiated against her in the absence of a "clear and present danger" which is based upon credible material.
It was further argued that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses and that her involvement in FIRs registered in March 2021, March 2022 and May 2023 under the Delhi Excise Act was yet to be proved.
The court rejected the submissions of the petitioner, noting that there appeared to be no violation of principles of natural justice as due notice was given to her and an opportunity was granted to cross-examine the witnesses.
A compassionate view has already been taken by the Lieutenant Governor by reducing the period of externment from two years to one year, which does not call for further interference, it added.
"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 court said.
The section itself reflects that the provision is to be used under extraordinary circumstances to curb lawless elements in the society, stated the court.
It observed that the petitioner was classified as a "bad character" by the police and witnesses were not forthcoming in open to depose in the criminal cases against her.
An additional deputy commissioner of police here had in February passed the externment order which directed the petitioner to "remove herself beyond the limits of NCT of Delhi" for a period of two years. The term was however reduced to one year by the Lieutenant Governor on appeal.
Stating that an externment proceeding is not for prosecution but to prevent the repeated commission of offences, Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said the cases against the petitioner reflected that she had a "dangerous" character" and the propensity to "unabatedly continue to indulge in the criminal offences" and her being in Delhi was "hazardous to the community".
"The acts of repeatedly indulging in bootlegging and illegal sale of liquor, on the face of the record, cause alarm or danger to the society at large and reflect that the petitioner is of desperate and dangerous character. In view of above, petitioner being at large in NCT of Delhi or in any part thereof, is apparently hazardous to the community," said the judge in the order passed on October 3.
"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 the society and needs to be curbed with a heavy hand... The petition is without any merits and is accordingly dismissed," stated the order.
The petitioner challenged the externment order on the ground that such proceedings could not have been initiated against her in the absence of a "clear and present danger" which is based upon credible material.
It was further argued that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses and that her involvement in FIRs registered in March 2021, March 2022 and May 2023 under the Delhi Excise Act was yet to be proved.
The court rejected the submissions of the petitioner, noting that there appeared to be no violation of principles of natural justice as due notice was given to her and an opportunity was granted to cross-examine the witnesses.
A compassionate view has already been taken by the Lieutenant Governor by reducing the period of externment from two years to one year, which does not call for further interference, it added.
"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 court said.
The section itself reflects that the provision is to be used under extraordinary circumstances to curb lawless elements in the society, stated the court.
It observed that the petitioner was classified as a "bad character" by the police and witnesses were not forthcoming in open to depose in the criminal cases against her.
