Back
1987 Supreme(Kar) 162
Karnataka High Court
Anjanappa - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Decided On : 06-29-87
C.R.P. : 219 of 1985
N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA, S.S.KOTI, T.Devakumar
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature and character of the Court, rather than the nature of the proceedings, determine the applicability of revisional jurisdiction. The court also emphasized the discretionary nature of the rule in Section 401(4) of the Code.
Headnote:
KARNATAKA POLICE ACT - Externment Proceedings - Section 56(d) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 397 to 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 6 of the Code, and Sections 20, 22, and 23 of the Code. The court also referred to Section 60 of the Karnataka Police Act and Section 401(4) of the Code. The judgment highlighted the interpretation of the term 'inferior court' and the nature of proceedings under Sections 54, 55, and 56 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was involved in multiple gambling-related cases and was subjected to externment proceedings under Section 56(d) of the Karnataka Police Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate ordered the petitioner to remove himself from the area for six months. The petitioner filed a Revision Petition challenging the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order was erroneous and unsustainable as there was no reason to believe that the petitioner was likely to commit the offense under Section 78(3) of the Act. The court allowed the Revision Petition and set aside the order.
Issues: The issues involved the competence and maintainability of the Revision Petition under Section 397 of the Code and the applicability of Section 401(4) of the Code in relation to the appeal provided under Section 59 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order was amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and that the petitioner could approach the Court in revision without availing the remedy of appeal provided under Section 59 of the Act. The court also emphasized that the rule in Section 401(4) of the Code is not inflexible and can be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases.
Final Decision: The Revision Petition was allowed, and the order dated 9-4-1985 made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was set aside.
( 1 ) THIS is a Revision Petition under section 397 read with Section 401 of the code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for short) and is directed against the order dated 9-4-1985 made by the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Chitradurga Sub-Division, in MAG. CR 7 (D)/1984-85 on his file.
( 2 ) THE facts, as they appear in the record, necessary to dispose of the present petition, are these : anjanappa, son of Gidda Hanumanthappa, the petitioner, is a resident of barageri Colony on Davangere Road in the limits of the City of Chitradurga. The Circle Inspector of Police, Chitradurga Circle, on 4-6-1984 registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No. 55/84 under Section 56 (d) of the KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 (the Act for short ). The allegation in the complaint lodged by the Circle Inspector of Police, on behalf of the State was that the petitioner moving on public roads, frequented by the members of the public was beckoning the members of the public to play Mataka gambling. The further allegation in the complaint was that the petitioner was encouraging the members of the public to play game, with money with a view to obtain unlawful gain. It appears from the complaint that a case had been registered against the petitioner in Chitradurga Fort Police Station in Crime No. 44/82 under Section 78 (3) of the Act on 17-3-1982 and on completion of investigation, the petitioner had been sent for trial to the jurisdictional Magistrate. It also appears that in c. C. No. 684/82 registered on the basis of the charge-sheet, the petitioner pleaded guilty to the offence charged and on his plea he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40/- with default clause on 1-4-1982. It is seen from the complaint that there was another case registered in the Fort Police Station on 15-10-1982 in Crime No. 198/82 under section 78 (3) of the Act and that in this case also the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- on 9-11-1982. It is in the complaint that there was the third case registered against the petitioner on 15-11-1982 in fort Police Station Crime No. 212/82 under Section 78 (3) of the Act and that in that case also there was conviction and sentence on the basis of the plea of guilty. The Circle Inspector of Police stated in his complaint that in spite of the prosecution of the petitioner during the year 1982, in three cases, ending in convictions and sentences, the petitioner had not swerved from the path of indulging in gambling ; that the petitioner had taken the gambling as his avocation; that it was not possible to prevent the activities of the petitioner and to bring him to the path of rectitude; and that the activities of the petitioner were detrimental to the interest and welfare of the society. He also stated in the complaint that if the petitioner was left unpunished, the antisocial activities indulged in by the petitioner would be increased and would result in great danger to the welfare of the society. It was on the basis of these allegations, the Circle Inspector of Police, after registering the case, requested the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chitradurga, to initiate externment proceedings against the petitioner and to direct the petitioner to remove himself outside the limits of chitradurga District. The Circle Inspector of Police sub-mitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate the extract of Register No. III (Register of Criminal Cases) issued by the Judicial magistrate First Class, Chitradurga giving particulars of the three cases instituted against the petitioner under Section 78 (3) of the Act and the reports of three cpnstables, all dated 3-6-1984. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate took the report on his file and issued notice to the petitioner dated 8-6-1984 stating therein that, as reported by the Circle inspector of Police, the petitioner was one of the originators of the Mataka gambling in Chitradurga ; that his activities were causing alarm and danger to the poor people in the locality; and
