Karnataka High Court

Sri Prakash S/O Chandrappa Singhe vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2023

Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj

                                                                 -1-
                                                                       NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949
                                                                       CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                            DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2023

                                                           BEFORE

                                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                                         CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101633 OF 2023 (482)

                                 BETWEEN:

                                 SRI. PRAKASH S/O CHANDRAPPA SINGHE,
                                 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                                 R/O. JAMAKHANDI RUDRASWAMY PET,
                                 R/AT. TEACHERS COLONY,
                                 KUNCHANUR ROAD, JAMAKHANDI,
                                 TQ. JAMAKHANDI,
                                 BAGALKOTE DISTRICT-587301.
                                                                                   ... PETITIONER
                                 (BY SRI. S C BHUTI, ADVOCATE)


                                 AND:

                                 1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                                      R/BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                                      SUB-DIVISION, JAMAKHANDI,
                                      TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587301.
              Digitally signed
              by
              VIJAYALAKSHMI
              M KANKUPPI
                                 2.   CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, JAMAKHANDI,
VIJAYALAKSHMI Location: High
M KANKUPPI    Court of
              Karnataka,
              Dharwad
                                      TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587301.
              Date:
              2023.08.04
              14:38:18 +0530


                                 3.   POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
                                      CITY POLICE STATION,
                                      JAMAKHANDI, TQ. JAMAKHANDI,
                                      DIST. BAGALKOTE-587301.

                                      ALL THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
                                      R/BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                      DHARWAD.

                                 4.   THE SENIOR ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND
                                      SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
                                      JAMAKHANDI, TQ. JAMAKHANDI,
                                      DIST. BAGALKOTE-587301.
                                -2-
                                     NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949
                                     CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023




                                               ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V S KALASURMATH, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT     BEARING   NO.   MAG/CR-41/2023-2024  DATED
14.07.2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 55 OF KARNATAKA POLICE
ACT, 1963 VIDE DOCUMENT NO.1.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                           ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

the order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the 4th respondent

externing the petitioner for a period of one year invoking

power under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963

(the 'Act', for short)

2. Heard Sri. S.C. Bhuti, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath, learned Government

Pleader for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is alleged to have been the accused

in several crimes. The issue in the case at hand is not with

regard to the merit of those crimes that are pending before

the Investigation Officers or the concerned Courts, as the

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

case would be. Based upon the said crime, an order is

passed by the 4th respondent on 14.07.2023 by which the

petitioner is externed for a period of 12 months from

Jamkhandi to Raichur. It is this order that is called in

question in this subject petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered

by this Court in Criminal Petition No.4999/2022 disposed on

29.06.2022. The learned counsel would submit that, as in

the aforesaid case, in the case at hand, no report against the

petitioner that was the foundation to pass the order was

furnished to him. The Apex Court in later judgment in case

of Deepak v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2022 SCC

ONLINE 99 has considered the Maharashtra Police Act and

the provisions of the said Act, which are in para materia

with the Act and the provisions there under, the Apex Court

holds that the order of exterment should be passed in

extreme circumstances, after following all the due process of

law. The said judgment of the Apex Court is followed by

this Court in Writ Petition No.392 of 2023 disposed on

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

21.03.2023 whereby the order of externment was set aside

on the score that it was passed in violation of the law laid

down by the Apex Court in the case of Deepak (supra).

Even otherwise, the issue in the lis stands covered by the

judgment rendered by this Court in Criminal Petition

No.4999/2022 wherein this Court has held as follows:

2. " Sans details, facts in brief, are as follows:- The petitioner is an elected member of Mandagadde Gram Panchayat and at the relevant point in time was serving as Vice- President of the said Gram Panchayat, having been elected from Lingapura Village which the petitioner claims to be by a huge margin and has also been elected as Vice-President by the support of majority of members.

3. On 11-12-2021, the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Shivamogga, directed Malur Police Station coming within his jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Section 55 of the Act, on the ground that the petitioner was involved in unlawful activities and he is danger to public property. The added inference was that, he was in the habit of threatening the witnesses. On these allegations, a report was made on 11-12-2021 against the petitioner and was placed before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the petitioneron 29-01-2022, seeking the petitioner to show cause as to why Section 58 of the Act, should not be invoked against him.

The petitioner after receiving the notice appeared before the Assistant Commissioner and filed his detailed objections. The

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

Assistant Commissioner claiming to be considering the objections, passed the impugned order dated 09-05-2022. It is this order that is called in question in the subject petition.

4. Heard Sri R.Nagendra Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents.

5. Learned counsel Sri R.Nagendra Naik, appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the show cause notice did not accompany the police report dated 11-12-2021, based upon which the show cause notice for passing an order under Section 58 of the Act was issued by the Assistant Commissioner and the order of the Assistant Commissioner does not bear any reason for passing an order of externment for the offence punishable under Section 55 of the Act.

6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would seek to justify the action of the Assistant Commissioner in passing the impugned order contending that there were allegations against the petitioner that he is an habitual offender and he is known to be threatening the witnesses but would admit that the report of Police was not a part of the show cause notice that was issued to the petitioner.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

8. In the light of the order being passed under Section 58 of the Act for offence punishable under Section 55 of the Act, it is germane to notice both the provisions of law and they read as under:

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

55. Removal of persons about to commit offences.--

Whenever it shall appear in the City of Bangalore and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under section 7 to the Commissioner, and in other area or areas to which the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, extend the provision of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction and specially empowered by the Government in that behalf,--

(a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, or

(b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offence, and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, or

the said officer may, by an order in writing duly served on him, or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or the outbreak or spreadof such disease or to remove himself outside the

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

area within the local limits of his jurisdiction or such area and any district or districts or any part thereof contiguous thereto by such route and within such time as the said officer may specify and not to enter, or return to the said place from which he was directed to remove himself."

... ... ... ...

58. Hearing to be given before an order is passed under section 54, 55 or 56.--(1) Before an order under section 54, 55 or 56 is passed against any person, the officer acting under any of the said sections or any officer above the rank of an Inspector authorised by that officer shall inform the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. If such person makes an application for the examination of any witness, produced by him, the authority or officer concerned shall grant such application and examine such witness, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the authority or officer is of opinion that such application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay. Any written statement put in by such person shall be filed with the record of the case. Such person shall be entitled to appear before the officer proceeding under this section by a legal practitioner for the purposes of tendering his explanation and examining the witnesses produced by him.

(2) The authority or officer proceeding under sub-section (1) may, for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person against whom any order is proposed to be made under section 54, 55 or 56 require such person to appear before him and to furnish a security bond with or without sureties for such attendance during the inquiry. If the person fails to furnish

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

the security bond as required or failsto appear before the officer or authority during the inquiry, it shall be lawful to the officer or authority to proceed with the inquiry and thereupon such order as was proposed to be passed against him may be passed."

Interpretation of the afore-quoted provisions of the Act need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter as Coordinate Benches of this Court have from time to time held that if an order under Section 58 of the Act has to be passed, it would be imperative for the competent authority to provide an opportunity to the party before him to file his written statement or examining any witness or tendering any explanation and in this connection, if a show cause notice is issued without mentioning exactly the allegations against the accused and the materials collected in support of such allegation, it would vitiate entire proceedings. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of JAYANTH v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR AND OTHERS reported in 2017 (3) KLJ 288, has held as follows:

"9. Now before adverting to the above submissions, it is just and necessary to look into the relevant provisions of K.P. Act. In order to initiate the proceedings and to proceed with the same under Section 55 of the Act, to pass an order of removal of the persons, about to commit offences, certain procedures have to be followed. The provision under Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, mandates that before an order under Section 54, 55 or 56 is passed against any person certain procedure require to be adhered to, Section 58 reads as under:

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

"58. Hearing to be given before an order is passed under Section 54, 55 or 56.- (1) Before an order under Section 54, 55 or 56 is passed against any person, the officer acting under any of the said sections or any officer above the rank of an Inspector authorized by that officer shall inform the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. If such person makes an application for the examination of any witness, produced by him, the authority or officer concerned shall grant such application and examine such witness, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the authority or officer is of opinion that such application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay. Any written statement put in by such person shall be filed with the record of the case. Such person shall be entitled to appear before the officer proceeding under this section by a legal practitioner for the purposes of tendering his explanation and examining the witnesses produced by him.

(2) The authority or officer proceeding under sub-section (1) may, for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person against whom any order is proposed to be made under Section 54, 55 or 56 require such person to appear before him and to furnish a security bond with or without sureties for such attendance during the inquiry. If the person fails to furnish the security bond as required or fails to appear before the officer or authority during the inquiry, it shall be lawful for the officer or authority to proceed with the enquiry and thereupon such order as

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

was proposed to be passed against him may be passed."

Therefore, irrespective of the fact, the District Magistrate shall provide an opportunity to the party before him to file his written statement or examining any witnesses or tendering any explanation, it is mandatory on the part of the District Magistrate to issue such legal show-cause notice. In this connection, the Learned Counsel has relied upon a ruling of this Court in the case of Basappa Ghaviyappa v. State of Karnataka [1976 (2) Kar.LJ. 329.] wherein this Court has held that:

"No doubt, Section 58 says that the information to be furnished to the person against whom an order is to be passed should be of a general nature. But at the same time, it should not be too generalor vague so as to render the persons not able to tender their explanation in respect of what is levelled against them. The test to be applied for the purpose of finding out whether the information which is conveyed to the persons is proper or not, is whether the information is of such a character as to enable them to give explanation."

Therefore, this Court held that issuance of show-cause notice, without mentioning what exactly the allegations made against the person and the materials collected in support of such allegations would vitiate the entire proceedings.

10. In this background, I would come back to the show- cause notice (Annexure-B), dated 17.05.2016, issued by the District Commissioner. It is the case that, after the receipt of the report from the Superintendent of Police is concerned, a notice was issued. In the said notice it is only stated that the

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

Superintendent of Police, Karwar, has submitted a report against the petitioner and the case was posted on 20.05.2016, at 3.00 P.M., and the petitioner is directed to appear in person or througha Counsel in order to give his written statement tothe said allegations.

11. This notice, as noted above, is very vague. This notice is not supported by a copy of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Karwar. In the said notice, neither the specific contents of the report nor the gist of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police is reiterated, so as to make the said notice in compliance with Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act. Therefore, without issuing any such notice and seeking explanation from the party, the District Magistrate should not have initiated and proceeded with the proceedings against the petitioners. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the District Magistrate is vitiated at the initial stage itself.

12. Now, coming to the other materials on record, it is noted, in the impugned order at page No. 3, that the petitioner's Counsel has submitted five documents with list and also submitted his arguments. But, it is not stated in the impugned order that what were the documents that were produced before the District Magistrate and how they were relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case. Though the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is culled out in the order, no reasons have been given meeting out those grounds urged by the petitioner before the District Magistrate. After culling out all the above said allegations, the District Magistrate has stated that, in spite of the petitioners being acquitted in four cases and bonds were executed in four cases under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., two cases are still pending, the petitioner has not mend

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

his conduct, therefore, there is likelihood of communal clashes in the said area. Hence, he has issued such orders. The above said observation made by the District Magistrate is without considering the documents produced by the petitioner and the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner before the Learned District Magistrate. The Learned Counsel has produced before this Court, that in the year 2015, particularly, in the month of June, himself and his wife were elected as members of the Zilla Panchayat, and in view of they being elected, they cannot leave the place because they have to attend meetings and, as elected members, they also have to take care of the said area with reference to development and other things, and in spite of producing those documents, the same were not considered by the District Magistrate.

13. Be that as it may. As I have already stated that subsequent granting of opportunity after initiation of the proceedings will not cure the initial defect occurred while issuing show-cause notice to the petitioner. The show-cause notice is not in compliance with Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, and in view of the decision noted above, whole of the proceeding is vitiated. Therefore, in my opinion, the proceedings initiated by the District Magistrate is vitiated by serious procedural irregularities which cannot be cured after initiating the proceedings itself. Therefore, the order impugned under this petition deserves to be quashed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The order passed by the District Magistrate, Karwar, dated 31.08.2016, is hereby quashed. However, liberty is given to the District Magistrate to issue fresh show- cause notice, if need be,

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

in compliance with Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act and following the guidelines noted above in this petition and thereafter, the District Magistrate can proceed with the matter and pass appropriate orders in this regard, in accordance with law."

(Emphasis supplied)

Another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of MOHAMMAD RAFEEQ v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA in Criminal Petition No.1261 of 2020 decided on 26- 02-2020, has held as follows:

"10. On going through Section 55 of the Act, to attract the provisions of the said Act there should be an allegation to show that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property must be there. Mere allegation of unlawful act are not sufficient. This proposition of law has been laid down by this Court in the case of Basappa Ghaviyappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1976(2) Kar.LJ 329.

11. On going through the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate it indicates that he has been swayed away on the basis of the report given by the Police and on the basis of the said report without making a detailed enquiry has passed an externment order. Mere apprehension of the police is not enough for passing such an order under Section 55 of the Act. There must be some grounds or there mustbe adequate material to show that there is danger and there is credible material which makes the movements and acts of the person in question alarming or dangerous or fraud with violence and there must be

- 14 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

sufficient reasons to believe that the person proceeded against is so desperate and dangerous that his mere presence in the locality or any part thereof is hazardous to the community and its safety.

12. None of the ingredients are present in the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Even the grounds which have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and Additional SPP have been considered by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.1018/2018 in the case of Ejaz Hussain @ Ejaz Ali @ Gunda Vs. The State of Karnataka by Police Circle Inspector, Kote Circle, dated 8.2.2019 and the said decision is the covered decision so as to aptly applicable to the present facts of the case. By applying the said ratio to the present case on hand, the petitioner has made out a case so as to set aside the impugned order.

13. In that light, the petition is allowed and the order dated 20.1.2020 passed by Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Kundapura Sub-Division, Kundapura, in Case No.CDS.MAG.CR No.211/2019-20 is set aside.

IA No.1/2020 does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed of."

In its judgment rendered on 15-01-2021 in Criminal Revision Petition No.200092 of 2020 in the case of ALI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTEHRS, a coordinate Bench of this Court considering the entire spectrum of law has held as follows:

"5. The provision under Section 58 of the said Act of 1963 mandates that before any order is passed under Sections 54, 55 or 56 of the said Act of 1963 against any person, the authority concerned is required to comply

- 15 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

certain procedural requirements. Section 58 of the said Act of 1963 reads as follows:

"58. Hearing to be given before an order is passed under section 54, 55 or 56.--(1) Before an order under section 54, 55 or 56 is passed against any person, the officer acting under any of the said sections or any officer above the rank of an Inspector authorised by that officer shall inform the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. If such person makes an application for the examination of any witness, produced by him, the authority or officer concerned shall grant such application and examine such witness, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the authority or officer is of opinion that such application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay. Any written statement put in by such person shall be filed with the record of the case. Such person shall be entitled to appear before the officer proceeding under this section by a legal practitioner for the purposes of tendering his explanation and examining the witnesses produced by him.

- 16 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

required or fails to appear before the officer or authority during the enquiry, it shall be lawful to the officer or authority to proceed with the inquiry and thereupon such order as was proposed to be passed against him may be passed."

6. In the background of the said provision of law, if the how cause notice dated 01.06.2020 issued by the second respondent is considered, it is very clear that the requirement of the said provision of law has not been complied. The copy of the said notice is not accompanied with the report of the first respondent. The particulars of the cases, which are registered against the petitioner, are also not mentioned in the notice. The show cause notice itself is therefore defective. In the impugned order passed by the second respondent, he has only stated that there is a report of the Inspector of Police, Lingasugur, who has stated that there are certain cases registered against the petitioner, who is an anti-social element indulged in playing matka and gambling and his activities have been hampering the peace and tranquility of the public and he is also in the habit of purchasing the prosecution witnesses by paying them money which has resulted in stalling the progress of the criminal cases pending against him.

7. Mere allegation of unlawful act is not sufficient for passing an order under Section 58 of the Act of 1963 of which the consequences are very serious. The second respondent has passed the order solely based on the report of the first respondent without making any enquiry. Mere apprehension of the Police is not a factor, which is required to be considered before passing of an order under Section 58 of the said Act of 1963. There must be application of mind by the officer, who

- 17 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

passes the order with regard to the apprehensions made by the Police. In the impugned order except stating that the petitioner has been continuously indulged in playing matka and gambling and that the activities have been disturbing peace and tranquility of the public and that the petitioner is in the habit of purchasing the prosecution witnesses which has resulted in stalling the progress of the criminal cases against him, there are no material particulars of the allegations made against the petitioner forthcoming in the impugned order. There are no instances quoted where a case against petitioner has ended in acquittal because the material witnesses were prevented from deposing against him.

8. In the case of Ambadas -vs- State of Karnataka - ILR 1987 KAR 1481 at paragraph-5, ithas been held as follows:

"5. No doubt if there is express provision in the statute governing a particular subject matter, there is no scope for invoking or exercising inherent powers of the court; because the court ought to apply the provisions of the statute which are made advisedly to govern the particular subject matter and it being an extraordinary power, has to be sparingly exercised with great care and caution, the power cannot be invoked where another remedy is available and if any matter is covered by express provisions of the statute, the High Court cannot and need not give a go by invoking the provisions of S. 482 because that may amount to evolving new procedure in the grab of exercise of inherent powers, and that is well settled. Although as provided under S. 59 of the Act a remedy by appeal is available to any person aggrieved by such order of externment passed under S. 55 of the Act

- 18 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

and the appeal lies to the Government, but from a reading of S. 59 together with S. 60 of the Act, it would appear that there is no bar against the court interfering with such order of externment in the circumstance as enumerated in S. 60 of the Act - (1) where the procedure laid down in sub-section (1) of S. 58 is not followed; (2) there is no material before the authority concerned upon which it could have based its order, and (3) the authority making the order is not of the opinion that witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the persons in respect of whom an order is made under S. 55. Forming of such opinion by the authority as to the willingness of the witnesses to come forward in public to give evidence against the persons sought to be proceeded is a must; because under clause (b) of S. 55, externment order could be made only where it appears there are reasonable grounds for believing that person of parsons in engaged or is about to be engaged in commission of an offence involving force or violence an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offence, and in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. Here in the case on hand, although the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate appears to have referred to so many criminal cases instituted against the three of the petitioners, but nowhere he is of the opinion that cases against those of the persons had ended in acquittal because of the witnesses unwilling to give evidence for fear of safety of

- 19 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

person or property. In fact, no material worth the name has been placed to show that the cases ended in acquittal because of such fear. At one stage, of course the S.D.M. appears to have thought, that may be so, but there is no basis for the same. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Chand v. Union of India, mere apprehension of the police is not enough for passing an order of externment. Some ground or the other is not adequate for making the order of externment. There must be a clear and present danger based upon credible material which makes the movement and acts of the person in question alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence. Likewise, there must be sufficient reason to believe that the person proceeded against is so desperate and dangerous that his mere presence in the locality or any part thereof is hazardous to the community and its safety. A stringent test must be applied in order to avoid easy possibility of abuse of this power to the detriment of the fundamental freedoms. Natural justice must be fairly complied with and vague allegations and secret hearings are gross violations of Arts. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Act permits externment, provided the action is bona fide. All power, including police power, must be informed by fairness if it is to survive judicial scrutiny. It would appear, the learned S.D.M. has been more influenced by the secret report sent by the Circle Inspector of Police about such apprehension and the secret visit to the place, which has not been put to the petitioners. In substance, the S.D.M. has failed to form an opinion on tangible material that witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against

- 20 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

the petitioners. The latter part of the requirement of Clause (b) of S. 55 having not been fulfilled, the impugned order of externment passed cannot be sustained."

9. The judgments in Crl.R.P.No.100220/2016 and in Crl.R.P.No.1018/2018 relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner are also squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Even in the said cases under similar circumstances, the order of externment has been set aside by this court.

10. The contention of the learned HCGP that the petitioner has got an appeal remedy under Section 59 of the said Act of 1963 is required to be rejected in view of the position of law declared by this court in the case of Ambadas (supra).

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the law declared by this court in the judgments referred to above, I am of the considered opinion that the proceedings initiated by the second respondent and the impugned order passed by him is vitiated by procedural irregularities and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.10.2020 No.Kum/M.A.G./03/2020-21/3039 passed by the in second respondent/Assistant Commissioner, is hereby set aside."

If the impugned order is tested on the anvil of the principles laid down by the coordinate Benches of this Court, the impugned

- 21 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7949 CRL.P No. 101633 of 2023

order is rendered unsustainable, as the show cause notice did not contain the report of the Police that led to the proceedings for offence punishable under Section 55 of the Act and the Assistant Commissioner/2nd respondent, who passed the order is solely based on the report of the Police. Mere existence of cases against the petitioner cannot be a ground to exterminate him from Shivamogga Sub-Division for a period of six months, more so, the petitioner being an elected representative and Vice- President of Mandagadde Gram Panchayat."

5. In the case at hand as well, no report which was

against the petitioner is appended to the notice issued.

Therefore, the issue stands covered by the judgment

rendered by this Court.

6. In the light of the aforesaid order passed by this

Court and the judgment of the Apex Court in Deepak's case

(supra), the petition deserves to succeed.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the 4th

respondent stands quashed. Liberty is reserved to the