Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 120 (KAR)

Chandramma v. State of Karnataka

2016-02-02

K.N.PHANEENDRA, MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2016
ORDER : Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J. 1. The order of preventive detention dated 27-8-2015 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-A under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 and the order dated 17-10-2015 passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-E under Sections 12(1) and 13 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 are called in question in this writ petition. The Detaining Authority-second respondent having satisfied that the petitioner is a habitual 'Gambler' as defined under Section 2(f) of Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short) has passed the order of detention dated 27-8-2015 under Section 3(2) of the Act. The grounds for detention were also furnished along with the detention order to the detenue (petitioner's son) as per Annexure-C, dated 27-8-2015. However, the detenue did not choose to make any representation either through the Detaining Authority or the State Government or the Advisory Board. Ultimately, the first respondent passed the order dated 17-10-2015 as per Annexure-E under Sections 12(1) and 13 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985, confirming the order of detention. The first respondent has specified that the detention order will continue for a period of 12 months. 2. The grounds for detention served on the detenue, disclose that the Detaining Authority has narrated the facts of four cases, in which the detenue was involved in the crimes from the year 2012 to 2015 i.e. Crime Nos. 49 of 2012, 155 of 2013 and 5 of 2014 registered in Bhadravathi Old Town Police Station. The Detaining Authority has also relied upon Crime No. 213 of 2015 registered in Channagiri Police Station. All the four crime numbers were registered against the detenue for the offences under Chapter VII of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, on the allegation that the detenue was indulged in the illegal activities of Matka Gambling. The Detaining Authority has also relied upon Crime No. 213 of 2015 registered in Channagiri Police Station. All the four crime numbers were registered against the detenue for the offences under Chapter VII of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, on the allegation that the detenue was indulged in the illegal activities of Matka Gambling. At this stage itself, we hasten to mention that the definition of 'Gambler' under Section 2(f) of the Act specifies that a person, who commits or abets the commission of any offence punishable under Chapter VII of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (Karnataka Act 4 of 1964) including an offence of gambling relatable to "matka" is a "Gambler" and he is punishable under the said chapter. Since the detenue was found involved in matka gambling pursuant to aforementioned four cases, the Detaining Authority thought it fit to pass the detention order, inasmuch as the activities of the detenue could not be otherwise controlled. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised two grounds before us. They are: (1) No opportunity was given to the detenue to submit his representation before the Detaining Authority. (2) All the four cases are petty offences, which are relied upon by the Detaining Authority and the same are registered under Chapter VII of the Karnataka Police Act; out of the four crimes, detenue is acquitted long back in respect of two cases and he is facing trial in respect of other two cases. He further submits that merely because the detenue is involved in four cases, he cannot be dubbed as gambler, inasmuch as the detenue is honourably acquitted in two cases. 4. The first contention raised by the petitioner's Counsel that no opportunity was given to the detenue to submit his representation before the Detaining Authority, cannot be accepted. The grounds for detention make it amply clear that the detenue was informed by the Detaining Authority to submit his application before the Detaining Authority and to the State Government and to the Advisory Board. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner's Counsel to submit that adequate opportunity was not given to the detenue for making the representation. 5. We also do not propose to accept the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that four cases relied upon by the Detaining Authority are petty offences. It is no doubt true that the detenue is acquitted in two cases. 5. We also do not propose to accept the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that four cases relied upon by the Detaining Authority are petty offences. It is no doubt true that the detenue is acquitted in two cases. It is also mentioned specifically in the detention order that two crimes i.e. Crime Nos. 49 of 2012 and 155 of 2013 registered in Bhadravathi Old Town Police Station have ended in acquittal. It is also not in dispute that the other two crimes i.e. Crime Nos. 5 of 2014 and 213 of 2015 are not decided by the Courts and they are still in pending consideration. However, four cases relied upon by the Detaining Authority clearly reveal that the detenue was engaged in matka gambling on four occasions. 6. On looking to the grounds of detention, it is clear that the Detaining Authority has not only relied upon the four cases which are specifically mentioned in the grounds for detention, but has also relied upon nine cases, the details of which are not forthcoming in the detention order. In the Kannada version of ground for detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that totally nine cases are registered against the detenue and all such nine cases are relating to matka gambling; and that despite nine cases being registered against the detenue, he is continuing his activities illegally as gambler. But, in the English version of the grounds for detention, it is not revealed about nine cases registered against the detenue. The entire paragraph which discloses about the nine cases registered against the detenue as found in Kannada version of grounds for detention is left out in English version of ground for detention. It is by now well-settled that there should be true translation of grounds for detention. Since, we find that the details of nine cases so relied upon by the Detaining Authority are not furnished by the Detaining Authority at least in Kannada version to grounds for detention and as we find that the Kannada version and English version differs inasmuch as the Kannada version is not truly translated into English version, the detention order cannot survive. In our considered opinion, as nothing is mentioned about the nine cases relied upon by the Detaining Authority in English version of grounds of detention, the right of the detenue to make representation before the Appropriate Authority is affected. In our considered opinion, as nothing is mentioned about the nine cases relied upon by the Detaining Authority in English version of grounds of detention, the right of the detenue to make representation before the Appropriate Authority is affected. In view of the above, following order is made: (i) The order of preventive detention dated 27-8-2015 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-A and the order dated 17-10-2015 passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-E, which are impugned in this writ petition are liable to be quashed and the same stand quashed. (ii) The detenue namely, Jagadish alias Dodda alias Shivakumar, S/o. Late Narasimha shall be set at liberty, if he is not required in any other case. (iii) Writ petition stands allowed accordingly. It is further open for the Detaining Authority to pass order of detention afresh in accordance with law, if he so chooses.