LAWS(KAR)-2016-11-72

YALLAPPA MAREPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

Decided On November 18, 2016
Yallappa Mareppa Appellant
V/S
State of Karnataka And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner's has assailed the order of the second respondent Deputy Commissioner, Raichur District, Raichur, bearing No.Sam.Kam/MAG/GOONDA ACT/89/2015-16, dated 02/01/2016 (Annexure A ), which has been issued under Sec. 3(2) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (hereinafter, referred to as the Act, for the sake of brevity), which order has been approved by the first respondent - State, by order dated 11.01.2016, bearing No.HD. 05.SST.2016 and also by the State Advisory Board on 23.01.2016. As a result of the said orders, the Petitioner's has been detained for a period of twelve months from 02.01.2016.

(2.) According to the Petitioner's, he has completed his primary education and is eking out his livelihood by doing unskilled work. He is living with his wife and children at Shiyatalab, Raichur and hails from a very poor family. The Petitioner's was arrested on 02.01.2016, under Sec. 3(2) of the Act. The reasons cited for his detention are that cases have been registered against him within the limits of Sadarbazar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 273, 284, 32 and 34 of Penal Code r/w the provisions of Karnataka Excise Act. Details of ten cases have been given along with the crime numbers in Paragraph No.7 of the petition.

(3.) It is the case of the Petitioner's that he has been accused and acquitted in three cases under Sections 273, 284, 32 and 34 of Penal Code r/w Karnataka Excise Act and that five cases are pending for trial and two cases are registered under Sec. 110(G) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and that the Petitioner's has been released on executing a bond. Petitioner's has contended that according to the respondent authorities, Petitioner's deserves to be detained under the Act, since he is continuously engaged in the sale of spurious toddy since the year 2008 onwards and cases have been registered against him. That members of public, who have been cited as witnesses in the pending cases are not adducing evidence on account of the activities of the Petitioner's. According to the Petitioner's that is an incorrect presumption. That the order of detention has been passed without following due process of law at the instance of the respondent - police, which is an arbitrary action. The Petitioner's is represented by his wife in this petition, since the Petitioner's being a detenu is unable to approach this court in order to challenge the detention.