MAKDUM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dtd. 15/4/2023, a copy whereof avails at Annexure A whereby the 3rd Respondent - Asst. Commissioner has directed his externment from Tumkur District to Bengaluru District for a period of six months. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that his client being an innocent citizen, is law abiding and that he has been acquitted in all the cases; the law providing for externment as enacted in the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 is archaic in nature and therefore, should receive human construction. He also submits that the externment order is made in gross violation of the constitutional guarantees enacted in Articles 19 & 21.

(2.) Learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents opposes the Petition vehemently contending that the Petitioner had been involved in several criminal cases and one of them related to NDPS offences; although he has been acquitted in some of these cases, the same is not an honourable acquittal; he hastens to add that an acquittal granted for want of cogent evidence does not preclude the jurisdiction of the authorities to direct in externment when activities of such persons disturbed the social harmony & public health. He also contends that the constitutional guarantees are not absolute and that reasonable restrictions can be imposed even on the Fundamental Rights of the citizen. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is broadly in agreement with the submission of the learned AGA. The submission of petitioner's counsel that his client is an honest gentleman and law abiding, is difficult to countenance, admittedly he having been charge sheeted for heinous offences including the one relating to NDPS. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced the orders of acquittal if any to demonstrate that his client has been set at free on the basis of honourable acquittal and not for the want of evidence. There is no reason to assume that the petitioner has been honourably acquitted in all the cases.