ORDER : 1. Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the same is taken up for final hearing. 2. The revision petitioner-accused is before this Court assailing the order dated 9/2/2021 passed under Section 55(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘K.P.Act’ for the sake of brevity) by the Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gadag, in proceeding No.SAM/MAG/POl/CR01/2020-21, wherein, the revision petitioner was directed to be removed from Gadag Sub-Division jurisdiction and to deport him to Raichur District. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the Inspector of Police, Ron Police Station filed a request before the Assistant Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Gadag on 10/7/2020 with reference to No.818/2020 under Section 56(g) of the K.P.Act, requesting for initiation of action against the revision petitioner as he is involved in several criminal activities, such as, playing of Matka/OC and gambling and involved himself in six such cases since 2018 and out of which in 5 cases, he was convicted and remaining cases are still under enquiry/trial. It is also stated that a proceeding under Section 110(e) of Cr.P.C. is also registered against the revision petitioner. The Sub Inspector of police gave details of crime numbers, offences alleged and the accusation made against the accused in different cases. It is stated that: i) Crime No.6/2018 was registered in Ron police station against the revision petitioner under Section 78 of the K.P.Act and he was convicted in CC No.130/2018 as per the judgment dated 26/4/2018 and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. ii) Crime No.8/2018 was registered in Ron police station for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the K.P. Act and he was convicted in CC No.129/2018 by order dated 20/4/2018 and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. iii) Crime No.211/2018 was registered in Ron police station for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the K.P.Act and he was convicted in CC No.702/2018 by order dated 18/10/2018 and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. iv) Crime No.233/2018 was registered in Ron police station for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the K.P.Act and he was convicted in CC No.764/2018 by order dated 27/1/2018 and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. iv) Crime No.233/2018 was registered in Ron police station for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the K.P.Act and he was convicted in CC No.764/2018 by order dated 27/1/2018 and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. v) Crime No.26/2019 was registered in Ron police station for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the K.P.Act and he was convicted in CC No.17/2018 by order dated 19/3/2018 and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. vi) Crime No.25/2020 was registered in Ron police station for the offence punishable under Section 110(A) of the K.P.Act and bond to keep peace and tranquility in the locality was obtained by the revision petitioner. vii) Crime No.84/2020 was registered in Ron police station for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the K.P.Act and the same is still under investigation. 4. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ron Police Station submitted that since 2018 continuously for three years, the accused has committed similar offences and in five such cases, he is already convicted. But still, he has not improved his behavior. On the other hand, he has involved in forming unlawful assembly and committing similar offence, committing breach of peace and creating disturbance in public tranquility. Therefore, he requested the Assistant Commissioner being the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to pass the order of banishment from Gadag Sub-division to Raichur District in the interest of justice. 5. It is stated that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not followed the due procedure and proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 9/2/2021 directing removal of the revision petitioner from the limits of Gadag Sub-Division to the limits of Raichur District, which is called in question by the revision petitioner. 6. Heard Sri Anand R.Kolli, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Ramesh B.Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Assistant Commissioner has not followed the procedure as contemplated under the Act before passing the impugned order. Initially, information was received under Section 56(g) of the K.P. Act. The revision petitioner has filed his objection denying the allegation made therein. The Assistant Commissioner has not applied his mind nor made independent assessment/examination of the materials placed before him, but proceeded to pass the impugned order without any basis. Initially, information was received under Section 56(g) of the K.P. Act. The revision petitioner has filed his objection denying the allegation made therein. The Assistant Commissioner has not applied his mind nor made independent assessment/examination of the materials placed before him, but proceeded to pass the impugned order without any basis. He further submitted that even though the proceeding was initiated under Section 55(a) and (b) of the K.P.Act, notice was issued under 56(g), but the impugned order was passed under Section 56 of the K.P.Act. Therefore, there is blatant irregularity in passing the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel also submitted that there is no notice served on the petitioner as required under Section 58 of the K.P.Act. No details of accusation made against the petitioner is served on the revision petitioner. Under such circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the principles of natural justice are not complied with. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is not keeping good health and he belongs to economically and socially backward community and considering all these facts and circumstances, he requests for showing leniency in favour of the revision petitioner and to set aside the impugned order in the interest of justice. 9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the contention taken by the revision petitioner submitted that series of cases were registered against the revision petitioner under Section 78 of the K.P.Act and in 5 such cases, the revision petitioner was convicted and he was sentenced to pay the fine. In spite of that, he proceeded to commit similar offence and in that way, he has become a nuisance in keeping the peace and tranquility in the society. Therefore, the Ron police filed a requisition before the Assistant Commissioner who is the jurisdictional Sub-Divisional Magistrate to initiate action under the provision of K.P.Act. The notice of the proceeding was served on the revision petitioner as required under Section 58 of the K.P.Act and in response to the same; the revision petitioner had appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, represented by his Advocate and also submitted his detailed objection. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate after taking into consideration the materials placed before him and after satisfying himself about the requisition submitted before him, proceeded to pass the impugned order under Section 56 of the K.P. Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate after taking into consideration the materials placed before him and after satisfying himself about the requisition submitted before him, proceeded to pass the impugned order under Section 56 of the K.P. Act. There is no illegality of infirmity in the order impugned in this revision. The principle of natural justice is complied with and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. The learned High Court Government Pleader also submitted that under Section 59 of the K.P.Act, the appeal is provided to the Government within 30 days from the date of the order, whenever such orders are passed under Sections 54, 55 or 56 of the K.P.Act. The revision petitioner has not availed the opportunity of preferring an appeal before the Government, therefore, the revision petition is to be dismissed on that ground also. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of the petition as devoid of merits. 11. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is: “Whether the revision petition is to be allowed?” My answer to the above point is in the ‘Negative’ for the following: REASONS 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the proceedings initiated against him is under Section 55(b) of the K.P. Act. But notice was issued under Section 56(g) and the order was passed under Section 56 of the K.P.Act. Therefore, impugned order is not maintainable. He further submitted that no notice/information was furnished to the revision petitioner regarding the proceeding initiated against him before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as required under Section 58 of the K.P.Act and therefore, the impugned order requires to be set aside. 13. The third contention taken by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not applied his mind before passing the impugned order. He has not made independent enquiry regarding truth or otherwise of the allegation made against the revision petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 14. I have considered the materials on record in the lights of these submissions. The revision petitioner produced the copy of requisition dated 10/7/2020 submitted by Ron police to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gadag, requesting initiation of proceedings against the accused under Section 56(g) of the K.P.Act. 14. I have considered the materials on record in the lights of these submissions. The revision petitioner produced the copy of requisition dated 10/7/2020 submitted by Ron police to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gadag, requesting initiation of proceedings against the accused under Section 56(g) of the K.P.Act. In the said request, the Sub Inspector of police described in detail regarding Crime Nos.6/18, 8/18, 211/18, 233/18 and 26/19 registered in Rob Police Station against the revision petitioner under Section 78(3) of the K.P.Act and also stated that in all these five cases, accused is convicted by the learned Magistrate and revision petitioner is sentenced to pay fine. It is also stated that Crime No.25/2020 of Ron Police Station is registered under Section 110(A) of Cr.P.C. and bond as required under the provision is obtained from the accused. It is also stated that Crime No.84/2020 is registered in Ron police station for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the K.P.Act and it is still under investigation. 15. The learned High Court Government Pleader produced the additional document in respect of his defence. One such document is notice dated 21/8/2020 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gadag, Sub Division, Gadag addressed to the accused in the proceeding MAG/POL/CR-1/2020-21. In the said notice, the requisition submitted by Ron police is reiterated and the details of all the 7 cases were re-produced and the revision petitioner is called upon to appear before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and submit his statement. As per the endorsement found on this document, the revision petitioner is served with the notice on 28/08/2020. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner produced the copy of objection submitted by the revision petitioner before Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the above proceedings, wherein it is contended that Ron police have filed false complaint against him without any basis. Registration of the criminal cases as stated above are admitted and it is stated that all the five cases are already disposed of. It is not in dispute that the accused is convicted in those 5 cases for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the K.P.Act by the learned Magistrate at Ron, as stated above. 16. Under Section 55 of the K.P.Act, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate can proceed to initiate action for removal of persons who are about to commit the offence. It is not in dispute that the accused is convicted in those 5 cases for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the K.P.Act by the learned Magistrate at Ron, as stated above. 16. Under Section 55 of the K.P.Act, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate can proceed to initiate action for removal of persons who are about to commit the offence. Under Section 56 of the K.P.Act, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate can initiate action for removal of the persons who are convicted for certain offences. Section 56(g) of the K.P.Act relates to removal of the persons convicted for the offences under Sections 78, 79 or 80 of the K.P.Act for three times, within a period three years. If the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is having reason to believe that such person who is convicted thrice within a period of three years for the said offence is likely to again engage himself in commission of similar offence, for which he was convicted, then the order under this provision directing such person to be removed outside the area within the local limits of its jurisdiction, can be passed. 17. In the present case, even though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that he was not notified as required under Section 58 of the K.P.Act, copy of the requisition submitted by Ron police to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for initiation of action, the copy of the objection submitted by the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner before the Sub-Division Magistrate and the copy of order impugned in the present revision produced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner disclose that the revision petitioner is made known about the requisition, initiation of proceedings and specific allegations are made against him by the police before Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 18. The copy of notice dated 21/8/2020 produced by the learned High Court Government Pleader discloses that the said notice was served on the revision petitioner on 28/8/2020. This notice contains all the details which are required to be placed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, upon which the police are requesting initiation of the action under K.P.Act. 19. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has not disputed the fact that in 5 cases referred to in the notice, the revision petitioner is already convicted and he is sentenced to pay fine for the offence punishable under Section 78 of the K.P.Act. 19. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has not disputed the fact that in 5 cases referred to in the notice, the revision petitioner is already convicted and he is sentenced to pay fine for the offence punishable under Section 78 of the K.P.Act. Under such circumstances, initiation of the proceedings for passing the order under Section 56 of the K.P.Act cannot be found fault with. Initiation of proceedings under Section 56(g) of the K.P.Act squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case. Now, the question arises as to whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and only thereafter, he has passed the impugned order. 20. As per Section 56 of the K.P.Act, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is required to consider the materials placed before him and upon satisfying himself that the person is convicted of certain offences and is likely to be engaged himself in commission of similar offence again, the order under Section 56 could be passed. If the materials that are placed before the Court are taken into consideration, the revision petitioner is convicted for five times during 2018 for having committed the offence under Section 78(3) of the K.P.Act. This fact is never disputed by the revision petitioner. Even though it is tried to be contended that no notice was served and no opportunity was given to the revision petitioner as required under Section 58 of the K.P.Act, the materials placed before the Court disclose that proper notice was served with all required details and the revision petitioner had appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate represented through his Advocate and filed detailed objections. After consideration of the material placed both by the police as well as by the revision petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has formed an opinion that there is likelihood of the revision petitioner again committing the similar offence and proceeded to pass the impugned order. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the revision petitioner. 21. It is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that under Section 59 of the K.P. Act, the appeal is provided to challenge the impugned order and the revision petitioner has directly approached this Court, without exhausting his remedy under Section 59 of the K.P.Act. 21. It is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that under Section 59 of the K.P. Act, the appeal is provided to challenge the impugned order and the revision petitioner has directly approached this Court, without exhausting his remedy under Section 59 of the K.P.Act. He also submitted that as per Section 60 of the K.P. Act, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Sections 54, 55 or 56 shall be final it is shown unless that the officer authorized had not followed the procedure laid down in Sub-Section (1) of Section 58 of the K.P.Act. 22. In this regard, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has relied on the decision of this court in Ambadas Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 1987 KAR 1481 . In the said decision, this Court has held that even though the appeal is provided under Section 59 of the K.P.Act, where 1) the procedure laid down in sub-section (1) of Section 58 is not followed; 2) there is no material before the authority concerned upon which it could have been 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 Section 55, the revision is maintainable. But in the present case, no such grounds as stated above are made out to justify filing of the revision petition without exhausting the remedy under Section 59 of the K.P.Act. Moreover, no procedural illegality is made out to quash the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 23. In view of the discussions held above, I am of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, I answer the above point in the ‘Negative’. The revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.