An externment order under the Karnataka Police Act must be supported by objective evidence and a clear demonstration of the necessity for such action, particularly in light of the fundamental right to free movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dtd. 7/3/2023 passed by the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner Cum Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sagara, externing the petitioner from 7/3/2023 to 7/9/2023, from Sagara and sent him to Yadagiri District, invoking Sec. 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short).

2. Heard Sri Srikanth Patil K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The petitioner claims to be a pigmy agent in Madani Bank, Shikaripura and is the breadwinner of the family. The petitioner gets embroiled in eight cases and they are, crime Nos.146/2018, 25/2021, 34/2021, 52/2021, 104/2021 and 115/2022, all are registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 78(3) of the Act and in Crime Nos.19/2021 and 17/2022, in terms of the provisions of Sec. 107 of the Cr.P.C. Out of these eight cases, in fives cases, the concerned Court has imposed only fine and not any other punishment. Therefore, the petitioner gets acquitted by imposition of fine in five cases. In crime Nos.115/2022, 19/2021 and 17/2022, the cases are pending consideration and the police have filed charge sheets in those cases. What drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, is the order of externment passed on 7/3/2023, which is based upon the aforesaid cases.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of externment suffers from non-application of mind as all the cases that are referred to in the order of externment are for the offence punishable under Sec. 78(3) of the Act and in none of the cases the petitioner is convicted by imprisonment but has been imposed with fine of varying amounts in all the cases. The cases pending against the petitioner are registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 78(3) under the Act and in terms of Sec. 107 of the Cr.P.C. He would therefore, submit that there is no warrant for the petitioner to be externed on account of the aforesaid cases and would seek quashment of the same.

5. The learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the order of externment is passed in the case at hand invoking Sec. 55 of the Act and therefore, if a person is about to commit an offence the competent authority is entitled to pass such an order and would seek dismissal of the writ petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and require no reiteration. The order of externment is dealt with under Ss. 55 to 60 of the Act. Sec. 55 deals with removal of persons about to commit offences; Sec. 56 deals with removal of persons convicted of certain offences and Sub- clause (g) of Sec. 56 permits passage of an order of externment if a person is convicted of an offence punishable under Ss. 78, 79 and 80 of the Act for three times within three years. Therefore, the two operate in different fields Sec. 55 is invoked in the case at hand. It is germane to notice the provision under which an order of externment can be passed against a citizen and they read as follows:

"55. Removal of persons about to commit offences.--Whenever it shall appear in the City of Bangalore and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under Sec. 7 to the Commissioner, and in other area or areas to which the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, extend the provision of this Sec., to the District Magistrate, or the Sub- Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction and specially empowered by the Government in that behalf, --

(a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offe