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 careerin June 1961 and continued it till 1983. During the aforesaid period thepetitioner was involved in as many as 32 criminal cases, and they include casesof 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 wasgiven to the petitioner to show cause why he be not externed from the Unionterritory of Delhi. On 28/08/1985 an order was passed by the Deputycommissioner of Police requiring the petitioner to enter into a bond in thesum of Rs. 5000. 00 with one surety in the like amount undertaking to maintainpeace and good behaviour. The operative portion of that order reads asfollows: "now, therefore, I order that Shri Munshi Ram s/o Holia Ramr/o 5445, Ladoo Ghati, P. Ganj, New Delhi shall so conduct himselfas to prevent voilence and alarm and not to indulge himself incriminal activities and to maintain peace and good behaviour forwhich 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 fora period of one year from the date of this order and to forfeit indefault thereof the said sum of Rs. 5000. 00with one surety in the likeamount. The contravention of this direction is punishable under theprovisions 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 Actrequiring 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 ofyour undertaking you were provided a chance to improve yourbehaviour after entering into a bond for a period of one year whichwas accepted on 28. 8. 85. That you were directed to keep peace and good behaviour andto prevent voilence and alarm but you failed to desist yourself fromcriminal activities after that. 8. 85. That you were directed to keep peace and good behaviour andto prevent voilence and alarm but you failed to desist yourself fromcriminal activities after that. It is evident from the record that you have been continuingyour criminal activities and engaged yourself in the commission ofoffences for which the following cases were registered against youafter 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 recordreveal that your activities/movements are great menace and that youare so desperate and dangerous as to render your being at large inthe 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 publicagainst you by reasons of apprehension on their part as regards tothe safety of their person or property. " ( 5 ) THE petitioner appeared and showed cause against the notice. Thedeputy Commissioner of Police on a consideration of all the material placedbefore him passed an order for the externment of the petitioner from theunion Territory of Delhi for a period of one year. Against the aforesaid orderthe petitioner filed an appeal to the Lt. Governor but his appeal was rejectedby 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 gamblingcase in 1972. After this conviction he Lad also been involved in thesame offence though stood acquitted on 30. 9. 1977. He was alsobeing 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 Actleads to infer that the appellant is running a den and as such theseactivities certainly harm the interest of the society. Though thecases under the Gambling Act may not be menacing to the generalpublic yet in the case of appellant, I do not agree with the learnedcounsel for the appellant. Earlier order binding down the appellant does not absolve him. Though thecases under the Gambling Act may not be menacing to the generalpublic yet in the case of appellant, I do not agree with the learnedcounsel for the appellant. Earlier order binding down the appellant does not absolve him. The past records as placed on thefile mention the involvement of the appellant in as many as 32 casesunder several crimes including the Gambling Act; some of the casesare punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penalcode and as such the proceedings for externment of the appellantbeing based on the past involvement coupled with the presentconduct of the appellant cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Witnesses do not wish to come forward openlyto depose against a person who creates terror in the mind of thepeaceful citizens due to apprehension to their safety, With this viewof the matter, I find that there is sufficient material against theappellant and the Deputy Commissioner of Police has rightly externed the appellant from the Union Territory of Delhi in terms ofthe provisions of section 47 of the Act for a period of one year. Inend 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 hadended in the execution of a bond by the petitioner on 28/08/1985. Shrivohra further contended that the three cases mentioned in the notice are underthe 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 madethe basis for an order of externment. Shri Vohra further contended thatthough the appellate authority was of the view that the cases under thegambling Act may not be menacing to the general public yet the appellateauthority held the activities of the petitioner to be harmful and against theinterest of the society. Shri Vohra further contended that the 32 cases mentioned in the earlier notice for externment were not mentioned in the noticedated 18/06/1986 and, therefore, they could not be relied upon by theappellate authority in upholding the externment order ( 7 ) I am unable to agree with the contentions of Shri Vohra. This casehas to be viewed in the background of the entire criminal activities ofthe petitioner. This casehas to be viewed in the background of the entire criminal activities ofthe petitioner. As already noticed the petitioner commenced his criminalactivities in 1961 and between 1961 and 1983 he was involved in asmany as 32 cases and some of the cases involved serious offences. Thepetitioner in his rejoinder admits that in the case under section 302 of theindian Penal Code he was convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code and in appealthe 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 thatthat action under sections 47/50 of the Delhi Police Act was initiated againstthe petitioner and ultimately of 28/08/1985 he wasbound down tomaintain peace and good behaviour and the required bonds were furnished bythe 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 undersection 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 behaviour but he had failed to keepup 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 dengerouscharacter and that his being left at large in the Union Territory of Delhi ishazardous to the community. The notice further records that the witnesses arenot willing to come forward to give evidence against him because theyapprehend danger to their person or property. ( 8 ) A reading of the notice on the whole could have left the petitioner inno doubt that the authority is taking into consideration both the past andpresent criminal activities of the petitioner. It was not necessary to mentionin the notice the details of the earlier criminal record which had ended uponthe petitionar executing a bond to maintain peace and good behaviour (bonddated 28/08/1985 ). It was not necessary to mentionin the notice the details of the earlier criminal record which had ended uponthe petitionar executing a bond to maintain peace and good behaviour (bonddated 28/08/1985 ). The renewed criminal activities of the petitionerwere specifically stated in the notice. The fresh criminal activities of thepetitioner, 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 certainlyharmful 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 andproperty of persons who come and gamble in that den. It is a matter ofcommon 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 ofdesperate and dangerous character and his being at large would be hazardousto the community. ( 9 ) SHRI Vohra referred us to a judgment of this court reported as Ravikumar v. Deputy Commissioner ofpolice, West District, Delhi. 25 (1984) Delhilaw Times, 285. I have read the cited authority and, in my opinion, it is notapplicable 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.