Karnataka High Court
Smt. Meghana S.R vs Commissioner Of Police on 13 October, 2023
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:37567-DB
WPHC No. 62 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION (HC) No. 62 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. MEGHANA S. R.
W/O SWAMY. K
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
MATHIGHATTA VILLAGE
MATHIGATTA POST
HIRISAVE HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 124.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by D
HEMA
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
AND:
1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
BY C.H. PRATAP REDDY. I.P.S,
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SECRETARY
HOME AND TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:37567-DB
WPHC No. 62 of 2023
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI THEJESH P., H.C.G.P.)
THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE
DETENTION OF SHRI. SWAMY @ SWAMY GOWDA @
KURUDASWAMY S/O NANJUNDE GOWDA, BY ORDER NO.22/
CRM(4)/DTN/2022 DATED 13.12.2022 (ANNEXURE "A" AND
"B") PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND APPROVED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 BY ORDER NO.HD 693 SST 2022 DATED
20.12.2022 (ANNEXURE-"E") AND CONFIRMED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 BY ORDER NO.HD 693 SST 2022 DATED
21.1.2023 (ANNEXURE-"F") AS ILLEGAL AND VOID ABINITIO.
THIS WPHC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 4 TH
OCTOBER 2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS, THIS DAY, UMESH M ADIGA J, PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Wife of detenue by name, Swamy alias Swami Gowda alias Kurunda Swami, son of Nanjunde Gowda has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for following reliefs:
a) Declare the detention of Shri Swamy @ Swamy Gowda @ Kurudaswamy S/o Nanjunde Gowda, by Order No.22/CRM/(4)/DTN/2022 dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure "A" and "B") passed by Respondent No.1 and approved by the -3- NC: 2023:KHC:37567-DB WPHC No. 62 of 2023 Respondent No.2 by order No.HD 693 SST 2022 dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure "E") and confirmed by the Respondent No.2 by order No.HD 693 SST 2022 dated 21.01.2023 (Annexure "F") as illegal and void abinitio.
b) Pass such other order or orders declaring the Order of Detention, the Order of Approval and the consequent Orders, as illegal and abinitio void.
c) Pass such other orders including release of the detenu forthwith.
d) Award Costs."
2. The Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, on the basis of materials placed before him and in pursuant to Section 8 of Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Gundas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) passed detention order as per Annexure-A bearing No.22CRM(4)DTN/2022 dated 13.12.2022. The said detention order was enclosed with "grounds of -4- NC: 2023:KHC:37567-DB WPHC No. 62 of 2023 detention" of even number dated 13.12.2022. The Commissioner of Police in the grounds of detention produced at Annexures-C and D, mentioned in detail reasons to pass detention order under the Act.
3. The Commissioner of Police has mentioned that there are nine criminal cases pending against the detenue in the Police Station of Seshadripuram, Yeshwanthapura, Soladevanahalli, Banasawadi, Ashoknagara, High Grounds, Upparpete Police Station in Crime Numbers 225 of 2013, 114 of 2014, 155 of 2014, 37 of 2017, 4 of 2019, 69 of 2022, 297 of 2022, 161 of 2022 and 153 of 2022. All these cases are registered under Sections 3 and 4 of Immoral Traffic Act, read with Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code and three cases are registered for attempting to commit robbery/dacoity or commission of robbery.
4. On the basis of materials placed before the Commissioner of Police by the Police Inspector, CCB through proper channel, the Commissioner of Police has -5- NC: 2023:KHC:37567-DB WPHC No. 62 of 2023 observed that "the detenue was a habitual offender in Immoral Traffic Act. He has been involved in antisocial and immoral traffic and prostitution activities. Inspite of registration of the cases against him, he continued his acts of human trafficking. His activities are endangering to the public order, especially spoiling the life of innocent girls by inducing them into prostitution. He got enlarged on bail in the criminal cases and thereafter, violating the conditions of bail, he was not regularly attending the Court. After releasing on bail, he continued his illegal activities. The detenue was also threatening the witnesses and tampering the evidence of the prosecution. Due to his antisocial activities and threat, the people are hesitating to file a complaint as well as give evidence against him. His activities are prejudiced to the maintenance of public order and antisocial activities of the detenue are threat and menace to the Society". For the said reasons, the Police Commissioner, Bengaluru ordered to detain the detenue under the Act.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:37567-DB WPHC No. 62 of 2023
5. In the detention order produced at Annexures-C and D, the Commissioner of Police has also informed to the detenue that if he wished to make any representation to the detaining authority, that is, Commissioner of Police, he may address it to the Commissioner of Police and forward the same through the Superintendent of Central Prison. It was also informed to him that if he desired to make any representation to the State Government with regard to the detention order, he may do so through the Superintendent of Central Prison and it was also informed to him that the Government would submit the records to the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of the detention and he can also make a representation to the Advisory Board, regarding the detention order. With all these information, the detention order was served on the detenue.
6. The Commissioner of Police submitted the detention order to the Government for its consideration. The Government, on considering the materials placed -7- NC: 2023:KHC:37567-DB WPHC No. 62 of 2023 before it, by its order No.HD-693-SST-2022 Bengaluru, dated 20.12.2022 approved the detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru. The said detention order is placed on record by the Petitioner at Annexure-E.
7. It appears the State Government submitted entire records to the Advisory Board for its consideration and the Advisory Board after considering the materials available on record approved for issue of detention order. Accordingly, the Government of Karnataka by its order dated HD-693-SST-2022 dated 21.01.2023 ordered to detain the detenue for a period of one year from 13.12.2022, which is produced at Annexure-F. The said orders of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, approved by the Government and so also passing of the detention order for a period of one year, are challenged in the present writ petition by the wife of detenue on various grounds set out in the writ petition.
8. The Respondent/State has filed objections supporting the detention order. It is the contention of the -8- NC: 2023:KHC:37567-DB WPHC No. 62 of 2023 respondents that the detention order as well as orders of the Commissioner of Police mentioning the grounds of detention, so also, order of detention passed by the Government are all in Kannada language and both Kannada and English translations were given to detenue along with the documents. The detenue did not seek for translated copy of any of the documents. Most of the documents enclosed to the detention order were documents in a criminal case registered against detenue; similarly, order/judgment passed by the Court. Therefore, the contention of detenue that he was not supplied with the translated copies are far from the truth.
9. It is further stated that detenue had made a representation to the Advisory Board on 30.12.2022. The same was submitted to the Advisory Board on the same day. The meeting of Advisory Board was fixed on 11.01.2023. The Advisory Board passed an order on 17.01.2023 and forwarded the same to the Government on 20.01.2023. Thereafter, Government has considered -9- NC: 2023:KHC:37567-DB WPHC No. 62 of 2023 the representation submitted by the detenue to the Chairman of Advisory Board. The State Government has considered the report as well as other materials and confirmed the detention order on 21.01.2023 and the said order was communicated immediately to the detenue.
10. On 27.01.2023, the State Government considered the representation made by detenue to the Advisory Board and rejected it and the same was immediately communicated to detenue on the same day. The respondents have strictly complied with all the procedures of the Act. Therefore, there is no room for quashing of the said orders on the grounds mentioned in the Writ Petition.
11. We have heard the arguments of the learned Advocate for Petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader.
12. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds made out in the Writ Petition and
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37567-DB WPHC No. 62 of 2023 submitted that without application of mind and without following the strict procedures of the Act, the Commissioner of Police has passed the impugned order. Similarly, it was approved by the Government and passed a detention order for a period of one year under Section 13 of the Act. Therefore, they are required to be quashed. They did not follow the prescribed procedure under the Act and contrary to the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Therefore, prayed for quashing of the impugned orders.
13. The learned HCGP in consonance with the objections filed has submitted that the provisions of law has been strictly followed and every order was immediately communicated to the detenue and the representation submitted by the detenue to the Advisory Board and after receiving the report from the Advisory Board, the Government has passed detention order under Section 13 of the Act for a period of one year and thereafter, the representation made by the detenue before
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37567-DB WPHC No. 62 of 2023 the Advisory Board was considered and it was rejected on 27.01.2023 and immediately it was informed to the detenue. Therefore, there is no lapse on the part of the Government or the Authority who passed the detention order and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
14. The main ground of attack on the impugned order by the petitioner is that the translated copies were not supplied to detenue. Looking to the documents produced by the detenue, the order of detention, so also, the grounds of detention were supplied to detenue which are both in English as well as in Kannada. The copy of the same has been placed by the petitioner before this Court and similarly, the orders passed by the State Government is in Kannada, which is supplied to the detenue. It is not the case of petitioner that after furnishing all the records, they sought for translated copies of the documents annexed to the detention order. As per submission of learned HCGP, the charge-sheets are in Kannada and the judgment passed by the concerned Court in two of the
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37567-DB WPHC No. 62 of 2023 cases were in English and the same was supplied to the detenue. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that in view of the non-supply of translated documents of material documents, the detenue could not submit the representation to the Government well in time, falls to the ground and on that ground, it cannot be held that the detention order passed by the Government is illegal or against the provision of law.
15. The second ground made out by the petitioner is that the detaining authority has not applied its mind while passing the orders. The detaining authority in Annexure-C as well as Annexure-D has mentioned in detail the reasons for detaining the detenue under the Act. The detaining authority has mentioned the number of cases registered against him and it is pertinent to note, most of the cases are heinous offence registered under the Immoral Traffic Act. Similarly, for the offences of attempt to commit dacoity, robbery and dacoity, the detaining authority after considering the materials placed before it,
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37567-DB WPHC No. 62 of 2023 by the Police Inspector CCB and after subject to satisfaction has passed the detention order. The said finding of the detaining authority are prima-facie sufficient to accept the orders of the detention. This Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court against the orders passed by the detaining authority and reconsider the said materials. It is sufficient to consider whether the detaining authority had applied its mind and passed the proper orders. On the reasons mentioned in Annexures-C and D, it can be accepted that the detaining authority has applied its mind before passing of the detention order.
16. In the petition, the petitioner has not explained the date on which, the detenue had submitted the representation or whether there is any delay in considering the representation. On the contrary, the writ petitioner has sought to direct the Government to give the said particulars. The Respondent, in its objection has mentioned in detail about the above said particulars.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37567-DB WPHC No. 62 of 2023
17. It appears, the detenue had submitted the representation before the Advisory Board. The Board had transmitted it to the Government along with its report and file. The State Government, after passing of the confirmation order, has considered the representation of the detenue and rejected the same by detailed orders. There is no violation of provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution by the detaining authority or the State. There is no unreasonable delay in considering representation.
18. The detenue was said to be involved in human trafficking and said to be continued immoral traffic of women/girls and persuade them for prostitution. He used to secure the girls by persuading them or inducing them for prostitution and carrying the girls to various places for prostitution. Looking to the cases registered against him, all these cases are pertaining to Immoral Traffic Act and robbery/attempt to commit robbery. Considering these facts, which are social crime, which
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37567-DB WPHC No. 62 of 2023 could not be prevented by the law enforcing authority, therefore, they passed the impugned order.
19. The judgments relied by the writ petitioner in the case of Musa Hussain Sanghar Vs. State of Gujarat1. The principle of law laid down in the above said judgment is not applicable to facts of present case. In this case, the representation was said to be addressed to Advisory Board and the same was submitted by the respondents to the Advisory Board along with other materials. The Advisory Board, after considering the various materials, sent its report to the State and thereafter, State has passed the detention order under Section 13 of Act. Thereafter, State has considered the representation of detenue and rejected the same by considered orders. Detenue had sent representation to Advisory Board and hence, till Board has sent the file with opinion, State could not consider representation of detenue. There is no unreasonable delay in considering 1 (1993) 1 SCC 511
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37567-DB WPHC No. 62 of 2023 representation by the respondents. Therefore, the law laid down in the case of Musa Hussain Sanghar (referred supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
20. The learned advocate for petitioner has also relied on orders passed by this Court in the case of RenuKamma Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District and others 2. And Smt.Jayamma Vs. Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru and others 3. In the case of Smt.Jayamma, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has issued certain Guidelines, which should be followed, while passing of the detention order; consideration of the representation; And service of such orders to the detenue. In this case, said directions are followed. In the case of RenuKamma (referred Supra), this Bench has considered unexplained delay in considering of the representation by the detaining authority/Government for passing of the orders. The principle of law laid down in the said case is not applicable to the facts of present case. 2 Writ Petition No.36 of 2023 dated 20.09.2023 3 Writ Petition No.102 of 2018 dated 08.03.2019
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37567-DB WPHC No. 62 of 2023
21. For the aforesaid discussion, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ Petition is dismissed.
ii) The impugned orders of detention
passed by the detaining authority as
well as the State Government is
confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
DH