LexD.M. NAGARAJA versus THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2011] 11 S.C.R. 458 D.M. NAGARAJA V. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1814 of 2011) SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF BOOTLEGGERS, DRUG-OFFENDERS, C GAMBLERS, GOONDAS, IMMORAL TRAFFIC OFFENDERS AND SLUM-GRABBERS ACT, 1985: s. 3 - Order of detention- Upheld by High Court - Held: The detention order refers to the activities and involvement 0 of the detenu in as many as 11 cases - It is the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that in spite of the continuous activities of the detenu causing threat to maintenance of public order, he was getting bail one after another and indulging in the same activities - On going E through the factual details, various materials in the grounds of detention, in view of continuous activities of the detenu attracting the provisions of /PC, and habitually repeating the same type of offences and also of the fact that all the procedures and statutory safeguards have been fully complied with by the Detaining Authority, the Court concurs F with the reasoning of the Detaining Authority as approved by the Government and upheld by the High Court - Preventive detention. s. 3 read with Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India - G Detention order -Disposal of representation - Limitation - Held: There is no constitutional mandate under Clause (5) of Article 22, much less any statutory requirement to consider the representation before confirming the order of detention - The competent authority can consider the representation only H 458 D.M. NAGARAJA v. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 459 & ORS. after the order of confirmation - However, no objection was A raised on behalf of the detenu in this regard - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 22 (5). Preventive detention - Purpose .of - Explained. In the instant appeal filed by the detenu, the question for consideration be1fore the Court was: whether the Detaining Authority was justified in passing the detention order dated 22.09.2010 and the High Court was right in confirming the same and dismissing the writ petition filed by the- detenu? Dismissing the appeal, the Court B c HELD: 1.1 The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish 0 him for something hEi has done but to prevent him from doing it. [para 7) [46Ei-C] Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 1975 (1) SCR 778 = (1975) 3 sec 198 - relied on. 1.2 Section 3 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum- Grabbers Act, 1985 (tCarnataka Act 12 of 1985) empowers E F the State Government to detain certain persons with a view to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. If the GovernmenUDetaining Authority is able to satisfy that a person either by himself or in association with other members habitually commits or attempts or abets such commission of offence punishable under the Indian Penal G Code, 1860 and subject to satisfying s.3 of the Karnataka Act No. 12of1985, he can be detained in terms of the said Act. [para 6) [464-C-D; 466-B] 1.3 In the instant case, the detention order refers the H 460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R. A activities and involvement of the appellant-detenue in as many as 11 cases. It is not in dispute that in one case he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of nine years. He had been acquitted in two cases; and four cases are pending B against him wherein he has been granted bail by the courts. The cases registered against him pertain to murder, attempt to murder, dacoity, rioting, assault, damage to public property, provoking the public, extortion while settling land disputes, possessing illegal c weapons etc. Though he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 years, that has not deterred him to put a stop to his criminal activities. In fact, from the year 1981 up to 2010, he has systematically committed these criminal activities. A perusal of the records and all 0 the details furnished in the detention order clearly show that the appellant-detenu started his career in criminal field when he was 30 years old and is now about 60 years and has about 28 associates assisting him in his criminal activities and a number of cas
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.