Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, upheld a police order externing an individual named Monika, who repeatedly engaged in bootlegging and illegal sale of liquor, from Delhi for a period of two years. 

“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”, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta opined.

Monika had approached the high court seeking to reduce the externment period to one year. The externment was initiated against Monika after a show cause notice was filed against her under the Delhi Excise Act. 

Advocates Mir Akhtar Hussain and Sonia Goswami, representing Monika, argued that these cases were falsely filed and did not meet the criteria for externment under Section 47, which required multiple cases within a single year. It was also noted that none of the FIRs involved physical harm or moral turpitude.

It was also submitted that Monika was denied adequate opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and her involvement in FIRs from March 2021, March 2022, and May 2023 under the Delhi Excise Act was proven. 

Additional Standing Counsel Yasir Rauf Ansari, for the State, supported the externment order and submitted that Monika was given sufficient opportunity to engage legal aid but avoided appearing in proceedings. It was noted that the Competent Authority had issued bailable warrants, and statements from witnesses were recorded in Monika’s presence. Despite being given opportunities, Monika did not cross-examine witnesses or file any response to the supplementary notice issued after she was involved in additional FIRs during the proceedings. 

The court referenced Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, which allows for externment orders if a person's actions or movements cause alarm, danger, or harm to others or property. Such orders can be issued when there are reasonable grounds to believe the individual was involved in violent crimes, posed a community threat, or caused witness intimidation.

“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 court highlighted. The court stated that judicial intervention is limited unless the authority's decision is irrational or baseless. Full evidence disclosure in these cases could endanger witnesses, justifying restricted information sharing.

In this case, the externment order against Monika was upheld due to her repeated involvement in illegal liquor trading, with multiple FIRs filed from 2018 to 2023. The court dismissed her argument about the timing of the FIRs, citing her habitual offences, and noted that her externment period had already been reduced. 

Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition. 

Case Title: Ms. Monika v State (2024:DHC:7605)