Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. A report was submitted to Sub-Divisional Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued on 1.6.2018 to the petitioner as to why an externment order should not be passed, as he is involving regularly in criminal activities and causing danger to the life and property of the people. To the said notice, the petitioner/accused gave his reply and after holding an enquiry the impugned order came to be passed directing the petitioner to keep out of Shivamogga for a period of six months (externment order for six months) from the date of the order. Assailing the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice which has been issued under Section 55 of the Act is vague and general, the said notice should contain and specifically state what are the concrete allegations made as against the petitioner. The said notice is so vague, it will not make out any clear allegation so as to enable the petitioner to offer his proper explanation. He further submitted that the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate is only on the basis of the report given by the Taluka Executive Magistrate. He has not specified with the explanation and he has been swayed away by the report given by the reporting authority. He further submitted that though the past acts are relevant, in order to pass externment order, the movement of the accused and future apprehension of the act of the accused is very much essential, the said fact is not forthcoming in the impugned order. He further submitted that while passing such order, mere apprehension of the police is not enough, there must be some ground or there must be clear and present juncture based upon credible material and information and the said aspect is lacking in this behalf. In order to substantiate his argument, he relied upon the decision in the case of Kempaiah H. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1982 KAR 841. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and set aside the impugned order.

- 11 -
482 because that may amount to evolving new procedure in the grab of exercise of inherent powers, and that is well settled. Although as provided under Section 59 of the Act a remedy by appeal is available to any person aggrieved by such order of externment passed under Section 55 of the Act and the appeal lies to the Government, but from a reading of Section 59 together with Section 60 of the Act, it would appear that there is no bar against the court interfering with such order of externment in the circumstance as enumerated in Section 60 of the Act - (1) where 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 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. Forming of such opinion by the authority as to the willingness of the witnesses to come forward in public to give evidence against the persons sought to be proceeded is a must; because

- 13 -

be so, but there is no basis for the same. As pointed but by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Chand v. Union of India, mere apprehension of the police is not enough for passing an order of externment. Some ground or the other is not adequate for making the order of externment. There must be a clear and present danger based upon credible material which makes the movement and acts of the person in question alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence. Likewise, there must be sufficient reason 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. A stringent test must be applied in order to avoid easy possibility of abuse of this power to the detriment of the fundamental freedoms. Natural justice must be fairly complied with and vague allegations and secret hearings are gross violations of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Act permits externment, provided the action is bona fide. All power, including police power, must be informed by fairness if it is to survive judicial