Criminal Revision Petitioner challenged an order of externment passed without conviction. Court held that externalment requires credible danger materials and compliance with Section 58 of the KP Act, and quashed the order.
The order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Magistrate is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.RP No. 59 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.59 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
AMMAN@ MANU AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, S/O. SALEEM RESIDENT OF BELAGUMBE ROAD, OPPOSITE SHIRADI SAI BABA TEMPLE, SHARADADEVI NAGAR, TUMKUR – 572 103. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KIRAN S. JAVALI, SPP-I A/W MRS. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2022 AND 20.12.2022 SIGNED BY PRESIDING OFFICER PASSED IN M.A.G./32/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CRL.RP No. 59 of 2023
AND THE OFFICE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, TUMKUR SUB DIVISION, TUMKUR AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CRL.R.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the accused challenging the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the competent officer in proceedings bearing No.MAG:32:2022 in exercise of his power under Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (‘the KP Act’ for short).
submits that the order under Section 56 of the KP Act could not have been passed in the present case since the petitioner has not been convicted for any offences as provided under Section 56 of the KP Act. He further submits that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity before the Competent Authority as provided under Section 58 of the KP Act and in support of this argument, he has placed reliance
CRL.RP No. 59 of 2023
on the order passed in Crl. R.P.No.1018/2018 disposed of on 08.02.2019 and Crl. R.P. No.100220/2016 disposed of on 27.02.2017.
not dispute that the petitioner has not been convicted as provided under Section 56 of the KP Act so as to invoke the power under the said provision of the Act. He further submits that proper opportunity was given to the petitioner before the competent Authority as provided under Section 58 of the KP Act and therefore, prays that the revision petition may be dismissed.
advanced by the learned counsel on both sides and also perused the material on records.
to show that the power under the said section can be invoked by the competent Authority against the person, who has been convicted at any time either before or after
CRL.RP No. 59 of 2023
the commencement of the KP Act, as provided under SubSections (a) to (h) of Section 56 of the KP Act.
CRL.RP No. 59 of 2023
against whom the proceedings are initiated is so desperate and dangerous that his mere presence in the locality or any part thereof is hazardous to the community and its safety. Such materials are not forthcoming in the present case.
ORDER
CRL.RP No. 59 of 2023
Section 58 of the KP Act and following the guidelines laid down by this Court in Crl.R.P. No.100220/2016 and thereafter, the competent authority can proceed with the matter and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, if need be.
Sd/JUDGE
MBM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order of externment under Section 56 of the KP Act can be passed against a person who has not been convicted.
Whether proper opportunity was given to the petitioner as required under Section 58 of the KP Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Amman@ Manu
The State of Karnataka
S VishwaJith Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
