Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 425 (KAR)

DEVAMMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2006-06-01

N.K.PATIL

body2006
ORDER The petitioner questioning the legality and validity. of the order dated 16th July, 2005 in proceedings No. DCGIMAG/289/2005-06 vide Annexure-A and also the order dated 8th September, 2005 in proceedings No. H.D. 665 SST 2005 vide Annexure-C on the file of second and first respondents respectively, has presented the instant writ .petition. 2. Petitioner herein claims that, her husband, Sri Rajashekar, has been detained by an order of second respondent dated 16th July, 2005 under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 ('Act' for short) for a period of three months and sent to Bellary prison. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board under the mandatory provisions of the said Act. The Advisory Board confirmed the detention order passed by second respondent herein and advised imprisonment for a period of twelve months under Section 12 of the said Act. The same has been confirmed by first respondent herein by its order dated 8th September, 2005 by exercising the power under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the said Act for a period of twelve months from the date of detention, i.e., 16th July, 2005. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by respondents 1 and 2 referred above, petitioner has presented the instant writ petition. 3. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for petitioner is that, the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 are one without jurisdiction. He submitted that, the said authority does not have any power under Sections 3 and 12 for ordering detention of the husband of the petitioner for a period of twelve months at once. Therefore, the same is illegal and liable to vitiate. He submitted that, the minor offence committed by the husband of the petitioner is only that, he has acted as an agent in Mutka (gambling) and that, husband of the petitioner being a villager, is not aware of the seriousness of the offences. Therefore, the action of the jurisdictional police in registering the case and detaining the petitioner is not justifiable. He submitted that, this aspect of the matter has been overlooked by both the authorities and extended the detention period and imprisonment. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned orders passed by both the respondents are liable to be set aside. 4. Therefore, the action of the jurisdictional police in registering the case and detaining the petitioner is not justifiable. He submitted that, this aspect of the matter has been overlooked by both the authorities and extended the detention period and imprisonment. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned orders passed by both the respondents are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader, inter alia, contended and substantiated the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 stating that, the same are in consonance and strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act and no error or illegality as such has been committed by respondents. He submitted that, the husband of the petitioner is involved in several cases and in some of the cases, he himself has pleaded guilty and accepted for having committed the offences in C.C. No. 565 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Junior Division), Chittapur and thereafter the proceedings was dropped by imposing a penalty of Rs. 800/-. Having regard to the nature of offences committed by the husband of the petitioner and repeating the same offences time and again, the said punishment has been imposed and the recommendation of the Advisory Board has been accepted and order has been passed by the Competent Authority. The said orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 are in. accordance with law and no error has been committed nor petitioner has made out any good grounds for interference. Therefore, he submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed at the threshold itself. 5. After hearing the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, after careful perusal of the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 and also the detailed report submitted by the Advisory Board constituted under subsection (1) of Section 9 of the Act, it reveals that, the first respondent has passed the impugned order on the basis of t4e reasons for detention of the husband of the petitioner given in detail by second respondent vide Annexure-B, culling out the various offences committed by the husband of the petitioner under different· sections and registered in different crime numbers. The order passed by second respondent is on the basis of the report submitted by the area Sub-Inspector and the Grama Panchayat, wherein they have referred to the nature of offences committed by petitioner in detail. The order passed by second respondent is on the basis of the report submitted by the area Sub-Inspector and the Grama Panchayat, wherein they have referred to the nature of offences committed by petitioner in detail. Inspite of giving several opportunities, the husband of the petitioner has not improved his conduct and repeated the same offences and has poisoned the atmosphere of the village and persuaded the innocent illiterate villagers including the rustic farmers to play mutka. From item No.6 of Annexure-B, it can be seen that, police have seized a sum of Rs. 11,176/- along with mutka chits, two ball pens etc., from the husband of the petitioner and the case has been registered in Crime No. 26 of 2005 under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Thereafter, since the husband of the petitioner has pleaded guilty, penalty of Rs. 300/- was imposed and the case filed in C.C. No. 139 of 2005 was withdrawn. From a careful perusal of the reasons assigned for detention of the husband of the petitioner, it is crystal-clear that, the modus operandi of the husband of the petitioner is that, whenever the case is registered against him, he appears before the Court and pleads guilty and pays reasonable penalty that is fixed by Court and repeats the same offence again. This Act of his proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the husband of the petitioner is a habitual offender and does not deserve any sympathy at the hands of this Court. After proper appreciation of all the relevant factors and also taking into consideration the report submitted by the jurisdictional police authority, including the report of the Grama Panchayat, the respondents 1 and 2 have rightly passed the impugned orders as envisaged under the mandatory provisions of the Act. Hence, I do not find any justification or good grounds to interfere in the well-considered orders passed by the authorities nor the petitioner has made out any good grounds to interfere in the orders passed by both the authorities. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is dismissed as devoid of any merits.