SMT. SHYLAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of detention dated 1.3.2016 passed by the third respondent, the order of approval passed by the second respondent dated 5.3.2016 and the order of confirmation passed by the second respondent on 13.4.2016 are called in question in this writ petition.

(2.) Sri. Vishwajith Rai, Learned Advocate for the petitioner taking us through the records submits that the order of detention is illegal; the same suffers from non-application of mind by the detaining authority; though nine cases are foisted against the petitioner, he is acquitted in three cases and is released on bail in other cases; out of the nine cases registered, three are relating to maintenance of good behaviour, maintenance of public peace etc.; six cases are registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Indian Penal Code (Chapter XVI); the last case registered against the petitioner is relating to the incident dated 22.7.2015 and the said crime is registered under Sec. 110(E) and (G) of Crimial P.C. The 8th case registered against the petitioner is relating to the incident that had happened on 11.5.2014 within the jurisdiction of Krishnaraja Police Station, Mysuru. Thus, according to the petitioner's Counsel there is no proximity between the incident relied upon by the detaining authority and the order of detention passed; that the orders are passed mechanically without due application of mind; the detaining authority has merely relied upon the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police; though the statement of objections are filed in the writ petition, the same is not supported by the affidavit of District Magistrate (the detaining authority), but the same is supported by the affidavit of the Police Inspector of Krishnaraja Police Station; that the District Magistrate has completely abdicated his functions in favour of the officer of the level of Inspector of Police; the Inspector of Police could not have any knowledge as to how the detaining authority has arrived at the conclusion, in as much as, the Inspector of Police did not have any access to the records relied upon by the District Magistrate. Since the order suffers from illegality, the same is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Out of the total of 9 criminal cases registered against the detenue, we find that in one case the detenue is convicted; three cases are pending trial in Courts; in two cases, he is acquitted and in three other cases he has given bond for keeping peace and good behaviour. Out of the total Nine cases registered against the petitioner, three cases are registered under the provisions of Sections 107 and 110 of Crimial P.C. for the purpose of keeping peace and good behaviour in Society. In remaining six cases, the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code are alleged against the petitioner. Out of said six cases, the detenue is convicted in one case and acquitted in two cases. Three other cases are pending consideration before the Trial Court.