9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the public property, provoking the public, attempt to grab the property of the public, extortion while settling land disputes and possessing of illegal weapons etc. (b) By the date of the detention order, i.e. on 22.09.2010, eleven cases had been filed against the detenue and out of them, four cases were pending trial before the respective Courts and records have been destroyed as time barred in four cases. In two cases, he has been acquitted. In pending cases, he was granted bail from the courts and in one case he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of nine years by the Sessions Court, Bangalore. The detention order further shows that because of his habituality in committing crimes, violating public order by threatening the public, causing injuries to them and damaging their properties and he was not amenable and controllable by the normal procedure, detained him as goonda under Section 2(g) 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 Karnataka Act ) (Act No. 12 of 1985) for a period of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation For the purpose of this clause, public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely inter alia if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in this clause directly or indirectly, is causing or is calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity, among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life or public health. (b) . (c) detention order means an order made under Section 3; (d) detenue means a person detained under a detention order; (e) (f) (g) goonda means a person who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter VIII, Chapter XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act XLV of 1860) Section 3 empowers the State Government to detain certain persons with a view to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. If the Government/Detaining Aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lidity of the detention order issued under Act No. 12 of 1985 and as affirmed by the High Court. 8) Mr. C.B. Gururaj, learned counsel for the appellant raised the only contention that inasmuch as action can be taken against the detenue under the ordinary laws, there is no need to detain him under Act No. 12 of 1985. In support of his contention, he very much relied on the recent decision of this Court in Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 5 SCC 244. On the other hand, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned counsel for the State, after taking us through the entire materials, various continuous activities of the detenue and several orders, submitted that the Detaining Authority is fully justified in clamping the order of detention and she also pointed out that the decision of the High Court is perfectly in order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9) We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the grounds of detention order and all the materials relied on by the Detaining Authority. 10) The detention order refers the activities and involvement of the appellant-detenue in as many as 11 cases. The details of which are mentioned hereunder: 1. Sriramapura PS Cr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wdy Rajendra @ Bekkina Kannu Rajendra, and also thinking that Rajendra was responsible for the death of his younger brother Krishna @ Kitti, chased him in public view and assaulted him with longs, dagger and other weapons and murdered him. He was arrested on 09.11.2004 and remanded to judicial custody. This case ended in acquittal since the witnesses did not depose properly against him out of fear. 10. Yelahanka New Town PS Cr. No. 186/09 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 307, 302 read with Section 149 IPC : In this case also, enmity between Ravi @ Bullet Ravi, Seena, Vasu and the detenue is the cause. Nursing a grudge over past incidents, the detenue has done away with the life of Ravi Raj @ Bullet Raj, Seena and Vasu by assaulting them with sickles. Seena died at the spot, whereas Ravi and Vasu died in the hospital. The detenue was arrested on 28.08.2009 and remanded to judicial custody. He was released on bail on 18.11.2009. A case in S.C. No. 120/10 in this regard is pending trial. 11. Subramanyanagar PS Cr. No. 32/10 under Sections 307, 353, 399, 402 IPC 3 25 of the Arms Act : On 06.02.1020 at 6.15 p.m., the detenue and his associates conspired to murder their ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicial to the public, causing harm and danger, the Detaining Authority detained him as goonda under the Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1985 for a period of 12 months and the same was rightly approved by the Advisory Board and the State Government. Inasmuch as the Detaining Authority has taken note of all the relevant materials and strictly followed all the safeguards as provided in the Act ensuring the liberty of the detenue, we are in entire agreement with the decision of the Detaining Authority as well as the impugned order of the High Court affirming the same. 13) Learned counsel for the appellant very much relied on a recent decision of this Court in Rekha (supra). In the above case, against the detention order dated 08.04.2010 imposed on Ramakrishnan under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 on the allegation that he was selling expired drugs after tampering with labels and printing fresh labels showing them as nonexpired drugs, his wife filed a habeas corpus petition before the Madras High Court. The said writ petition ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of enormous materials which are available in the grounds of detention, such habituality has not been cited in the above referred Rekha (supra), we are satisfied that the said decision is distinguishable on facts with reference to the case on hand and contention based on the same is liable to be rejected. 15) Though learned counsel for the appellant has not raised the objection i.e. delay in disposal of his representation since that was the only contention before the High Court, we intend to deal with the same. We have already stated that the detention order was passed on 22.09.2010 by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City. The said order was approved by the Government on 30.09.2010 and the case was sent to Advisory Board on 08.10.2010 and the Board sat on 04.11.2010. The Government received the report of the Advisory Board on 10.11.2010. Confirmation detaining the detenu for a period of 12 months was issued on 16.11.2010. Representation of the detenu through Central Prison was sent on 06.10.2010 i.e. before passing of the confirmation order by the Government. This Court in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi B.L. Abdul Khader vs. Union of India Ors. and State of Karnataka Ors. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
