Mundlur Narayana Rao @ Chitti vs The State of Karnataka

M.B. Vishwanath, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against whom a show cause notice u/s 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 was issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bellary, to take action against the revision petitioner u/s 55 of the K.P.Act.

Section 55 of the K.P.Act contemplates removal of a person about to commit an offence. The show cause notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (present respondent) to the revision petitioner says that he was satisfied on credible material placed before him that the movements and acts of the revision petitioner were alarming, dangerous and fraught with violence. That order has been passed on 16.4.1994.

I have carefully gone through the show cause notice issued u/s 58 of the K.P.Act against the revision petitioner with a view to taking action against him u/s 55 of the K.P.Act, It is argued by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the grounds stated are vague.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has given as many as six grounds. The first ground is that the petitioner was indulging in unlawful activities for the last 2 to 3 years against helpless, innocent and certain types of merchants. The modus operandi of the petitioner was that after striking a financial deal with money lenders and landlords he would interfere in the matter and recover the money by high handedness and force and by threatening them with dire consequences, etc.

The second ground set out in the show cause notice by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is that on account of the political background which the petitioner enjoyed, he was continuing with the unlawful acts unabated and the people suffered at his hands and those people who suffered at his hand did not venture to approach the police station for help.

The third ground stated is that it was reported that the petitioner on 29.7.1992 at about 10.00 a.m. had exhibited his unlawful activities openly on account of financial matter by forcibly dragging a person by name G. Chandrashekar, S/o. Bhimanna, R/o Bapujinagar, Bellary, and tied a rope to his leg and hung him tops survey and beat him with a stick in the presence of his (Chandrashekhar''s) two wives and other ladies.

The forth ground set out in the show cause notice is that the revision petitioner after taking contracts from the landlords for evicting the tenants from residential houses and shops, would threaten the inmates with dire consequences and evicted the tenants by rioting and none of the evicted tenants dared to lodge a complaint. On 29.12.1993, the revision petitioner threatened with dire consequences to the life of one Kishor Onkarmal by forcibly gaining entry into his shop situated at Ananthapur Road, Bellary, threatened him and directed him to vacate the shop. The said Kishor Onkarmal filed a complaint against the revision petitioner with the police and that has been registered in Crime No. 502/1993 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 109 Cr.P.C. read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

The fifth ground set out in the show cause notice is that on 20.2.1994 at about 5.30 p.m. the revision petitioner put up motor cycles across the Ananthapur Road, when the Chief Minister of Karnataka was returning after attending a public meeting at Government High School Ground and thereby caused traffic problem and disturbance to public peace. The revision petitioner attacked car No. CNY 190 which was accompanying the motorcade of the Chief Minister and damaged the glasses of the car etc. In this connection, a case has been registered against the revision petitioner by the police in Crime No. 28/94 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427 Cr.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C.

The sixth ground stated in the show cause notice which is challenged is that the revision petitioner has been indulging in antisocial activities causing fear among the peace loving citizens of Bellary City and using force and high handedness against the public and exhibited his unlawful activities and muscle power.

On the above grounds, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was likely to cause alarm, danger and harm to persons and property of public of Bellary City. So the show cause notice u/s 58 was issued to the revision petitioner giving him opportunity to show why an order u/s 55(A) of the K.P.Act should not be passed.

In this Court it is contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not given reasons and the grounds stated are vague.

The order in question has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the basis of the complaint made by the C.P.I. Bellary.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision of this Court reported in KEMPAIAH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 1982 (2) Kar LJ 69. In this case, the show cause notice issued u/s 58 was quashed and the concerned authority was given opportunity to issue a fresh notice giving information either on the report as made to the concerned authority or any other fresh material available to the concerned authority.

In the case reported in 1982 Kar.L.J. 69, one of the grounds alleged against the person to whom show cause notice u/s 58 was issued was that 11 cases for offences such as unlawful assembly, rioting, house trespass, mischief, assault on public servant were registered at Devanahalli Police Station against both the members of the parties. No details of the 11 cases were set out. It was in this circumstance that this Court came to the conclusion that the allegations did not show that the person''s movements or acts were causing or calculated to cause harm. It was held by this Court that the allegation of mere entertaining unlawful designs was not sufficient to take action u/s 55 of The K.P. Act.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner next relied on the decision of this Court reported in BASAPPA GHAVIYAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AIR 1976 Kar 329. In this case, the entire allegations stated in the show cause notice have been set out by this Court. This Court has held that the information to be furnished to the person against whom an order is to be passed should not be too general or vague, though it could be general. This Court came to the conclusion that the information given in the show cause notice were too general or vague. It was in this situation that this Court quashed the show cause notice.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner next relied on the decision of this Court reported in Udandappa Hanamappa Pujari and etc. Vs. State of Karnataka, . In this case, the show cause notice issued u/s 58 of the K.P.Act was quashed on the ground that the information given to the person against whom action was sought to be taken did not even mention whether the show cause notice issued u/s 58 of the K.P.Act was to take action u/s 54 or 55 or 56 of the K.P.Act.

In all the cases cited above, the information given in the show cause notice was too general or vague.

In the instant case, I have carefully gone through the show cause notice issued to the revision petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bellary, on the strength of the report made by the Circle Inspector of Police, has mentioned 7 grounds as to why show cause notice was issued to the revision petitioner u/s 58 of the K.P.Act, giving him an opportunity to the petitioner, as to why action u/s 55(a) should not be taken. I have set out above the grounds or the information mentioned by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. By no stretch of legal language could it be said that the information or the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice is/are vague. The details of the information or the grounds are thoroughly set out in the show cause notice.

For the aforesaid reasons, I am of opinion, the show cause notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bellary, to the petitioner is in order. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed.