DARVESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 27.10.2020 passed in Case No.Kum/M.A.G./03/2020-21/3041 by the second respondent/Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lingasugur, Raichur District, wherein he has passed an order of externment against the petitioner under Sections 55 and 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act of 1963'). Under the said order, the second respondent has passed externment order against the petitioner directing the Police to send the petitioner out of Raichur district for a period of two terms from the date of order i.e., 27.10.2020 and also directed the Police to see that the petitioner does not enter the district of Raichur during the said period.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are, in the report dated 26.02.2020 submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lingasugur Sub-Division, proceedings under Section 55 of the Act of 1963 was initiated against the petitioner on the ground that he is involved in unlawful activities such as matka and gambling, etc. It is also averred that the petitioner is involved in various criminal cases and he was indulged in activities, which disturbed the life and property of the people. It is also alleged that the petitioner was in the habit of threatening the prosecution witnesses. With these allegations, show cause notice dated 01.06.2020 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to appear before the SubDivisional Executive Magistrate on 11.06.2020 to show cause as to why an order under Section 58 of the Act of 1963 should not be passed against him. The petitioner has filed detailed objections to the show cause notice on 02.09.2020. Without considering the same, the second respondent herein has passed the impugned order on 27.10.2020. Being aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that in identical set of facts, this Court in Crl.R.P.No.200092/2020 has set aside the order passed by the second respondent. He submits that the police report, show cause notice and the date of enquiry, etc., are all common in the said case and in the present case. He submits that the show cause notice has not been accompanied with a police report which is the requirement of law. He submits that the impugned order has been passed in a very casual manner without taking into consideration the consequences of the same. The show cause notice, according to him, does not contain material particulars and only bald statements are made against the petitioner which does not give the necessary particulars for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to file a suitable reply. He also relies upon the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.10220/2016 dated 27.02.2017 and in Crl.R.P.No.1018/2018 dated 08.02.2019 in support of his case.