Disposed

Fareed v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2023CRL.RP/65/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision petition challenging externment order under Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Court rejected claim that deprivation of show-cause opportunity violated natural justice, noting notice was issued. Filtered remedy: stay imparted on order while petitioner must file appeal within one month and direct authority to decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of externment stayed pending filing of appeal under Section 59 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 within one month.

Fareed Vs the State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.RP No. 65 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 65 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

FAREED AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O MASOOD, ARACANUT BUSINESS, KUSHALANAGARA EXTENSION, SAKALESHPURA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. AHAMED S.N., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER / SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, SAKALESHPURA SUB DIVISION, SAKALESHPURA-573 134.

¶13

BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201.

¶14

THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR SAKALESHPURA TOWN POLICE STATION, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134

¶15

NO.1 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR K.K., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

¶18

¶19

CRL.RP No. 65 of 2023

¶20

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AND REVERSE THE ORDER OF EXTERNMENT DATED 12.12.2022 PASSED IN CASE NO.M.A.G. 365/2022-23 BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER / SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, SAKALESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has challenged an Order dated 12.12.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner and Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sakaleshpura sub-division, Sakaleshpura, externing the petitioner under Sections 55 (a) and 55 (b) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act of 1963’).

¶24

Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that against the order impugned in this revision petition, an appeal is provided under Section 59 of the Act of 1963 before the Deputy Commissioner.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not granted sufficient opportunity to show cause against the impugned order of externment and in view of the judgment of a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Anjanappa v.

¶26

3 - CRL.RP No. 65 of 2023

¶27

State of Karnataka [ILR 1987 Karnataka 2326], the petitioner cannot be forced to approach the appellate authority and that this Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.').

¶28

Perused the impugned Order passed by the respondent No.2. It is evident from the impugned Order passed by the respondent No.2 that under the provisions of Sections 55(a) and 55(b) of the Act of 1963, the petitioner was externed for a period of three months from the limits of Sakaleshpura sub-division. Against the said order, an appeal does lie under Section 59 of the Act of 1963 before the Government or the appropriate authority. It is trite that an appeal remedy cannot be short-circuited only on the ground that the principles of natural justice were not followed. It is seen that in the present case, notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause and the petitioner did submit his explanation.

¶29

In that view of the matter, this Revision Petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Government or the appropriate authority by filing appropriate

¶30

¶31

CRL.RP No. 65 of 2023

¶32

appeal under Section 59 of the Act of 1963. The petitioner shall file an appropriate appeal before the Government or the appropriate authority within a period of one month from today. Until then, the impugned Order dated 12.12.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 shall remain stayed. The Government or the appropriate authority is directed to dispose off the appeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months thereafter.

¶33

All contentions of the parties are left open.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

SMA

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84

Fareed v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fareed v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Jmj Agro Exports Vs M/S. Abc Enterprises

Tareeq Anwar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C.V. Srinivasegowda Vs Sri M.L. Venkatesh

Ramu Vs Deputy Commissioner

Surendrababu Vs M C Ramesh

T Natesh Vs State of Karnataka