ORDER : Revision petitioner challenging the order of externment proceedings bearing No.MAJ CR/148-2022-23 by respondent No.5-Assistant Commissioner, Sub Divisional Magistrate Subdivision, Dharwad district. 2. On the basis of a report of respondent No.2 on the recommendation of respondents 3 and 4, respondent No.5 issued show cause notice dated 21.01.2023 for submitting the explanation of revision petitioner. In response to show cause notice, revision petitioner appeared before respondent No.5. Thereafter, respondent No.5 on the basis of the material evidence placed before him passed impugned order under revision dated 13.02.2023 at Annexure-A in exercise of powers conferred under Section 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') and ordered for externment of revision petitioner out of the jurisdiction of Dharwad district to the jurisdiction of Gadag from 16.02.2023 to 16.08.2023. 3. Learned High Court Government Pleader has taken notice for respondents 1 to 5 and the records have been secured. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides. 5. The learned counsel for revision petitioner contended that externment order passed by respondent No.5 dated 13.02.2023 is against the mandatory provisions of Section 58 of the Act and no any opportunity was given to the revision petitioner to file objections and to lead evidence on his behalf. Therefore, the impugned order for non-compliance of Section 58 of the Act cannot be legally sustained. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that revision petitioner did not avail the opportunity given to him and sought for excusing him. Respondent No.5 based on the material evidence furnished by respondents 3 and 4 with the report of respondent No.2 has passed externment order dated 13.02.2023. The mandate of Section 58 of the Act has been complied. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the externment order passed by respondent No.5. 7. The impugned order under revision passed by respondent No.5 dated 13.02.2023 for removal of persons about to commit offence falls within the ambit of Section 55 of the Act. The removal of persons convicted for certain offences falls within Section 56 of the Act. In the present case, there are no any material evidence placed on record to show that in any of the criminal cases referred in the order of respondent No.5, revision petitioner after trial is convicted. Therefore, Section 56 of the Act has no application. The removal of persons convicted for certain offences falls within Section 56 of the Act. In the present case, there are no any material evidence placed on record to show that in any of the criminal cases referred in the order of respondent No.5, revision petitioner after trial is convicted. Therefore, Section 56 of the Act has no application. It is only Section 55 of the Act has been invoked by respondent No.5 for ordering externment of revision petitioner under the impunged order keeping revision petitioner out of the jurisdiction of Dharwad district. The legal requirement of Section 55 of the Act are as follows: "55. Therefore, Section 56 of the Act has no application. It is only Section 55 of the Act has been invoked by respondent No.5 for ordering externment of revision petitioner under the impunged order keeping revision petitioner out of the jurisdiction of Dharwad district. The legal requirement of Section 55 of the Act are as follows: "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 (c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant, 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 spread of such disease or to remove himself outside the 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. 8. 8. The impugned order under revision passed by respondent No.5 and the materials relied by him would go to show that the present case falls in terms of Section 55(a) of the Act. 9. The respondent No.5 on the basis of material placed on record must be satisfied that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to a person or property and in order to prevent violence and harm, the externment of revision petitioner is absolutely necessary. 10. Respondent No.5 before ordering for externment of any person in terms of Section 55 must necessarily follow the procedure contemplated under Section 58 of the Act and the same reads as follows: “58. Hearing to be given before an order is passed under Sections 54, 55 or 56.— (1) Before an order under Sections 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 subsection (1) may, for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person against whom any order is proposed to be made under Sections 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. (2) The authority or officer proceeding under subsection (1) may, for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person against whom any order is proposed to be made under Sections 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 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." 11. The show cause notice issued by respondent No.5 to revision petitioner dated 21.01.2023 as per Annexure-C would go to show that general allegations are made calling upon the revision petitioner to submit his explanation. The cases referred in the report of 2nd respondent on the basis of recommendation made by respondents 3 and 4 does not disclose reference of the said criminal cases referred in the impugned order passed by respondent No.5. 12. Learned counsel for revision petitioner relied on the judgment of co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of EJAZ HUSSAIN @ EJAZ ALI @ GUNDA S/O MEER HUSSAIN VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (Crl.R.P.No.1018/2018 dated 08.02.2019) wherein it has been held that: "11. Even as could be seen from the impugned order the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is swayed away by 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 must be 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 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." 13. In the present case also, the respondent No.5 has failed to form an opinion on tangible material that witnesses were not willing to come forward to give the evidence in public against the petitioner. In the present case also, the respondent No.5 has failed to form an opinion on tangible material that witnesses were not willing to come forward to give the evidence in public against the petitioner. This Court observed and held that non-compliance of Section 55 of the Act and recording of subjective decision of Sub-divisional Magistrate renders the externment order not sustainable in law. 14. Learned counsel for revision petitioner also relied on the judgment of co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of DARVESH @ MOHD. DARVESH S/O BHAVASAB VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER (Crl.R.P.No.200022/2021 disposed of on 09.02.2021). In this case also, the order passed by Special Divisional Magistrate in terms of Section 55 of the Act was under consideration and held that 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. In the present case, respondent No.5 has passed the impugned order under revision solely based on the report of respondent No.2 on the recommendation of respondents 3 and 4 without making any enquiry. The mere apprehension of the police is not a factor which is required to be considered before passing an order under Section 58 of the Act. There must be application of mind by the Officer who passes the order with regard to the apprehensions made by the police. 15. In the present case also, impugned order passed by respondent No.5 except stating that being convinced the movement of revision petitioner are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property by reproducing Section 55(a) of the Act, itself cannot be said as sufficient evidence to have subjective satisfaction of respondent No.5 regarding the apprehension without making any enquiry. Therefore, the impugned order under revision passed by respondent No.5 cannot be legally sustained. 16. The proceedings maintained by respondent No.5 also would go to show that accused was present on 30.01.2023 and his presence was taken on record. On the next date, 06.02.2023 revision petitioner was present and sought for excusing him and then impugned order under revision came to be passed. The mere obtaining signature of revision petitioner on the order-sheet is not enough to hold that reasonable opportunity of tendering explanation was given. On the next date, 06.02.2023 revision petitioner was present and sought for excusing him and then impugned order under revision came to be passed. The mere obtaining signature of revision petitioner on the order-sheet is not enough to hold that reasonable opportunity of tendering explanation was given. There is nothing in writing to show that revision petitioner sought for excuse by admitting the averments shown in the show cause notice. The show cause notice dated 21.01.2023 has no any reference of the criminal cases referred in the report of respondent No.2 and the one referred in the order by respondent No.5. The order of externment has serious consequence and keeps away the person so ordered from the family and from his place. The proviso to Section 58 of the Act also entitles the revision petitioner to be represented by a legal practitioner for the purposes of tendering his explanation and examining the witnesses produced by him. There is nothing that has been recorded in the order-sheet that respondent No.5 has given to understand revision petitioner that he is entitled to engage advocate and file explanation to the show cause notice, so also can give necessary evidence to rebut the allegations made in the show cause notice. Therefore, the impugned order under revision passed by respondent No.5 for non-compliance of mandatory requirement in terms of Sections 55 and 58 of the Act and without conducting any enquiry cannot be legally sustained. Consequently, proceed to pass the following: ORDER Revision petition filed by revision petitioner is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by respondent No.5 bearing No.MAG/CR/148/22-2023 dated 13.02.2023 is set aside. Pending IA-1/2023 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is disposed of.