Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 952 (KAR)

Bharathi S. Prabhu v. State Of Karnataka

2014-10-31

N.K.PATIL, RATHNAKALA

body2014
Judgment : 1. This petition is filed by the wife of the detenue Sri.Shridhar @ Shridhara Prabhu against the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 3.5.2014. 2. The case of the petitioner is, her husband Sri.Shridhar @ Shridhara Prabhu was arrested on 19.3.2014 in lieu of an order passed by the 3rd respondent under Sections 12(1) and 13 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to detain him for a period of 12 months from the date of order, in Belgaum Central Jail. 3. Sri.Rahamathulla Shariff, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is a clear violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and also Sections 12 (1) and 13 of the Act. The Authority could not have passed an order detaining him for a period of 12 months at the first instance itself. Under law, they are obliged to pass the initial order of detention for a period of three months and thereafter extend, if need arises. Going by the communication issued to the detenue, he is not involved in any crime, which is punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The detenue is ailing from heart problem and for his continued treatment, he may be set at liberty. 4. Sri.B.Veerappa, learned AGA fairly submitted that, the provisions of the Act are not attracted in the given circumstances of the case. 5. On a perusal of the records, it emanates that the District Magistrate passed the order of detention on 19.3.2014 by invoking the provisions of Sections 12(1) and 13 of the Act. On the same day, he was arrested. The petitioner herein challenged the said order before this Court vide W.P.H.C.No.66/2014, which came to be dismissed on 8.4.2014, on observing that the matter was still before the Advisory Committee. 6. Now it is the submission for the petitioner that, she could not get any relief from the Advisory Committee. 7. As could be noticed from the communication made to the detenue along with the order, he is involved in following cases: 1) Crime No.66/2009 Sec 78 Clause (4) & (6) K.P.Act: Participated in act and according to CC No.351/2009, you paid penalty of Rs.500/- to the court on 05/09/2009. 7. As could be noticed from the communication made to the detenue along with the order, he is involved in following cases: 1) Crime No.66/2009 Sec 78 Clause (4) & (6) K.P.Act: Participated in act and according to CC No.351/2009, you paid penalty of Rs.500/- to the court on 05/09/2009. 2) Crime No.06/2010 Sec 78 Clause (4) & (6) K.P.Act: Participated in act and according to CC No.84/10, you paid penalty of Rs.500/- to the court on 26/02/2010. 3) Crime No.105/2010 Sec 78 Clause (4) & (6) K.P.Act: Participated in act and according to CC No.580/2010, you paid penalty of Rs.500/- to the court on 20/10/2010. 4) Crime No.85/2012 Sec 78 Clause (4) & (6) K.P.Act: Participated in act and according to CC No.723/2012, you paid penalty of Rs.1000/-& sentenced for 3 days by the court on 03/01/2013. 5) Crime No.155/2013 Sec 78 Clause (4) & (6) K.P.Act: Participated in act and Case is pending before the Court. 8. Section 2(g) of the Act, which is pressed into action, reads thus: "2(g) "goonda" means a person who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter VIII, Chapter XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act XLV of 1860)". 9. Obviously, none of the offences alleged in the above cases are punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. All the offences alleged are under the Karnataka Police Act. That being so, the definition clause of Section 2(g) of the Act is not at all attracted, thereby the impugned order is vitiated for invoking a wrong provision of law and the detention order is illegal. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The detenue Sri.Shridhar @ Shridhara Prabhu, S/o Vasudeva @ Vasudeva Prabhu, Age 56 years, Madhavanagara, Gowribidanur Town, Chikkaballapur District, is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Communicate this order to the respondents-3 to 5 and the jail authorities of Belgaum Central Jail, forthwith.