IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.350 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI SHIVARAM KULAL S/O. NANDI KULALL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANJUSHRI, KAMBTHIYAR BETTU KUDRALLY, BIJADI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.
(BY SRI PRASANNA B.K., ADV.) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI.
2. THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR LAW AND ORDER, KUNDAPURA TAKUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.T. NAIK., H.C.G.P.) * * * THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 2-2-2019 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI, IN CASE NO.MAG (2) CR.260/2018/E 38332 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the removal order dated 2-2-2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Udupi, by exercising the power under Section 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. The facts of the prosecution case is that, the District Magistrate passed the impugned order under Section 56 of the Act on the requisition made by the Superintendent of Police, Udupi, alleging that the present petitioner is involved in as many eight criminal cases registered in Kundapura Police Station between 2014 and 2018 and he is likely to commit similar offences and with the said apprehension, by quoting the provisions of Section 56(g) of the Act for passing the external order.
4. After receipt of the requisition, the learned District Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner on 16-10-2018 summoning to appear before him and to submit his reply on 29-10-2018 at 3:00 p.m. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared through his counsel and filed written objections on 31-12-2018 taking the contention that as per Section 56(g) of the Act, there must be three convictions within the span of three years. After considering the written objections of the petitioner, the learned District Magistrate passed an impugned order directing the petitioner to go out of the District for three months which expires on 2-5-2019.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Deputy Commissioner has not applied the mind in respect of the provisions of law and the decision of this Court in various cases. He has presumed that the petitioner may commit similar offences, which is only illusion and there is no conviction and sentence passed by the Criminal Court. He is having wife and children, and he is doing petty business. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the learned District Magistrate, after considering the documents on record, has mentioned that there are eight cases registered against the petitioner between 2014 and 2018. The petitioner has been convicted and paid the fine amount. Hence, he supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the revision petition.
7. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the documents as well the impugned order, that shows there are eight cases registered against the petitioner and he has been convicted and sentenced to pay the fine, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Kundapura. The cases are:
8. It is necessary to mention the power of the learned Magistrate for passing the order under Section 56(g) of the Act, which is hereunder:
“56. Removal of persons convicted of certain offences.- If a person has been convicted at any time either before or after the commencement of this Act.-
xxx xxx g. Thrice of an offence within a period of three years under Section 78, 79 or 80 of this Act; or xxx xxx.”
9. A bare reading of the Section 56(g) of the Act, which shows that a person must have been convicted thrice of an offence under Sections 78, 79 or 80 of the Act at any time either before or after the commencement of the Act for the similar offence within a period of three years. In this case, the petitioner has been convicted and paid the fine amount once in the year 2014, twice in the year 2016, thrice in the year 2017 and twice in the year 2018.
10. On perusal of the documents, the petitioner continuously involved in the offences punishable under Section 78(i)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, the District Magistrate rightly held and based upon the documents evidence on record, he has apprehension that the petitioner may likely to commit the similar offences in future and also keeping in mind, the upcoming parliamentary elections, has passed the impugned order and the same expires within one week. Therefore, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, which calls for interference by this Court. The revision petition is devoid of merits.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of main revision petition, I.A. No.1 of 2019 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2019 is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE kvk