The impugned order was found to be a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Karnataka Police Act.

( 1 ) THIS revision-petition is filed by the petitioner-Mohammed Javeed Agha under S. 397 r/w S. 401 of Cr. P. C. to set aside the order dated 13-6-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Police and District Magistrate, bangalore in Crime No. (4)/externment/8/06 vide Annexure-C.

( 2 ) ASSAILING the same the petitioner has come up with this revision-petition mainly on the ground that the impugned order Annexure-C is highly arbitrary and ultra vires. The district Magistrate failed to consider the case in its proper perspective, thereby resulting in miscarriage of justice. The impugned order passed is only on the basis of the police report and no other documents like statement of witnesses etc. , to arrive at a conclusion of externment of the petitioner for a period of one year. The respondent has failed to examine the witnesses in support of its report, to prove that the petitioner was involved in the alleged activities which caused respondent to pass the impugned order Annexure-C under s. 55 (b) of the Karnataka Police Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the provisions of S. 55 (b) of the Act are not at all applicable. The order under challenge is in violation of s. 55 (b) of the said Act, as it is not the case that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence in public which is necessary with regard to a person's involvement in committing offence involving force, violence etc. Though show cause notice issued by the respondent gives some other reasons, but the impugned order passed is without informing about the alleged involvement of this revision-petitioner in connection with assault of Hyder asgar and the explanation/reply submitted to the show cause notice by the revision-petitioner was not at all considered by the respondent before passing the impugned order. No witnesses were examined. Since he is a businessmen, in this regard the petitioner also produced letters dated 11-5-2006 issued by his business associates as per Annexures-D, D-1 and D-2. Even then the District Magistrate has wrongly come to the conclusion and has passed the impugned order Annexure-C. Moreover the petitioner is having aged parents, two small school going children and also his wife is pregnant, his presence is very much required for the children so also his parents and wife being pregnant. The Commissioner of Police and District Magistrate-respondent without issuing show cause notice about the alleged involvement of this revision-petitioner in Hyder Asgar's case, passed the impugned order which is bad in law, illegal and liable to be set aside. Hence this revision-petition.

( 3 ) HEARD the arguments of learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and learned State public Prosecutor Sri Dore Raju for the respondent and perused the records.

( 4 ) HAVING heard the arguments, the points that arise for consideration are :

(1) Whether the impugned order under challenge passed by the Commissioner of police and District Magistrate is a clear violation of S. 55 (b) of the Act?

(2) Whether the impugned order Annexure-C passed by the respondent other than the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice at Annexure-A to extern him from the Bangalore Urban district is bad in law?

( 5 ) THE petitioner herein has been arraigned as an accused in several criminal cases registered against him in between 1995 i. e. , S. C. No. 560/95, S. C. No. 9/95, S. C. No. 529/2000, s. C. No. 153/99, C. C. No. 18455/99 and C. C. No. 24323/98. The Commercial Street Police registered a case in Crime No. 154/04 for the offence punishable under Ss. 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in C. C. No. 24787/04, which is still pending and the other case registered in Crime No. 36/05 for the offence punishable under Ss. 386 and 506 (b) r/w S. 34, I. P. C. the petitioner was arrested subsequently and he was released on bail and investigation is still pending. So as on today the charge-sheet came to be filed against the revision

Click Here to Read the rest of this document