SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER challenges the detention of her husband under the provisions of Section 3 of the Karnataka Prevention of dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum- grabbers Act, 1985 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1985)-hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The District Magistrate, Dharwad, made the impugned order which was approved by the State Government on 27-10-1987. The counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate states that the detenu was taken into custody on 16-10- 1987 and eversince then, he is under detention.

( 2 ) THE grounds of detention (Annexure-CI) refer to several instances of the detenu's alleged activities of conducting gambling, Mutka and receiving and disposing of theft properties. Several instances of prosecutions launched against the detenu in connection with these activities are cited in the grounds of detention Out of the ten instances, one ended in the acquittal of the detenu by the criminal Court and a few cases are pending trial and some are under investigation. These apart, 16 other cases were registered against him right from the year 1976 under the Karnataka Police Act, Excise act and Immoral Traffic cases which are also listed in the grounds of detention. It is also stated therein that in all these cases, detenu was acquitted. Having regard to these instances, the District magistrate stated that he was 'satisfied' that the detenu was a 'gambler' as defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act and that he was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in section 2 (a) (iii) of the Act The grounds further state thai to prevent the detenu from committing further anti-social activities, the District magistrate was compelled to pass the said detention order, for preventing his antisocial activities through gambling and mutka. Detenu was given opportunity to make any representation against the order to the State Government, through the District Magistrate. It is also pointed out that the requisite material will be placed before the Advisory board under Section 9 of the Act to enable it to opine as to whether there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu The grounds also pointed out inter alia, that the detenu may, if he so wished, make any representation to the Advisory Board.

( 3 ) THE above order of the District magistrate was affirmed by the State government under Section 3 (3) of the Act on 27-10-1987.

( 4 ) SRI R. U. Goulav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, canvassed the following points in support of the Writ Petition and urged that the order of detention was invalid,- (A) The order of detention does not mention the period during which detenu will be detained. (B) The approval of the State Government was made after the period prescribed under Section 3 (3) of the Act. (C) The several instances referred in the grounds of detention are irrelevant to the making of the order of detention, since the detenu was not connected in any of those cases-either he had been acquitted or some of the cases are still pending. Further, the reference to the 16 cases launched against the detenu in the year 1976, leading to his acquittal, was entirely an irrelevant factor. (D) The instances referred in the grounds of detention, and the allegations against the detenu, do not constitute such activities which can be termed as prejudicial to 'public order' ; at the most, they are activities touching the question ot 'law and order' (E) There has been delay in considering the representation of the detenu. (F) The order of detention cannot be valid beyond a period of 3 months, under Section 3 (2) of the Act. RE : 'a'

( 5 ) IT is not a statutory requirement that the period of detention should be specified in the order of detention. In the absence of such a specification Section 13 of the Act will operate, which states the period of detention to be twelve months from the date of detention, when the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document