- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9900 CRL.P No. 102736 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102736 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RAMU G. S/O GANGANNA, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BEHIND MANJUNATH MEDICAL STORE, ROOPANGUDI ROAD, BALLARI 583 101. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.M. JAVED AND SRI. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, BALLARI-583 101. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI-583 101. 4. POLICE INSPECTOR, BRUCEPET P.S., BALLARI-583 101. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, BALLARI IN NO./ kam/ MAG/ GADIPARU/ 13/ 2025-26, DATED 16.06.2025 (ANNEXURE-C), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9900 CRL.P No. 102736 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.06.2025, passed by respondent No.2, the Assistant Commissioner, in proceedings bearing No.Kam/ MAG/ GADIPARU/ 13/ 2025-26 in excise of its power under Section 55(a) of the Karnataka Police Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, after receipt of enquiry notice dated 29.05.2025, a detailed objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner by his advocate on 10.06.2025. The Competent Authority has not at all considered the said objection, and without reference to the objection filed on behalf of the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9900 CRL.P No. 102736 of 2025 4. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. She submits that the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner in the objections have been considered and a detailed order has been passed. 5. The material on record would go to show that the enquiry notice was issued on 29.05.2025 to the petitioner by the Competent Authority proposing action under Section 55(a) of the Karnataka Police Act. The enquiry notice was issued on the basis of the requisition received from the Bruce Peth Station in the month of May-2025, which was forwarded by the DSP of Ballari to the Competent Authority on 26.05.2025. Perusal of the enquiry notice would go to show that the copy of the proposal received from the Police for taking action against the petitioner under Section 55(a) of the Karnataka Police Act, was not enclosed along with the enquiry notice. The consequence of an order passed under Section 55(a) of the Karnataka Police Act is very serious and the liberty of a person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is at stakes. Therefore, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9900 CRL.P No. 102736 of 2025 competent authority is required to strictly comply the principles of natural justice. Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act reads as follows: “58. Hearing to be given before an order is passed under sections 54, 55 or 56.- (1) Before an order under section 54, 55 or 56 is passed against any person, the officer acting under any of the said sections or any officer above the rank of an Inspector authorised by that officer shall inform the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. If such person makes an application for the examination of any witness, produced by him, the authority or officer concerned shall grant such application and examine such witness, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the authority or officer is of opinion that such application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay. Any written statement put in by such person shall be filed with the record of the case. Such person shall be entitled to appear before the officer proceeding under this section by a legal practitioner for the purposes of tendering his explanation and examining the witnesses produced by him. (2) The authority or officer proceeding under sub-section (1) may, for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person against whom any order is proposed to be made under section 54, 55 or 56 require such person to appear before him and to furnish a security bond with or without sureties for such attendance during the inquiry. If the person fails to furnish the security bond as required or fails to appear before the officer or authority during the inquiry, it shall be lawful to the officer or authority to proceed with the inquiry and thereupon such order - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9900 CRL.P No. 102736 of 2025 as was proposed to be passed against him may be passed.” 6. From the reading of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that the accused should be given a fair opportunity of being heard before passing an order under Section 55(a) of the Karnataka Police Act. The said provision also contemplates that the objection filed, if any, by the party has to be kept in the file. 7. In the case on hand, after receipt of enquiry notice, objections were filed on behalf of the petitioner by his learned Advocate on 10.06.2025. However, the order impugned does not reflect the receipt of any such objections on behalf of the petitioner. There is no reference in the order impugned to the statement of objections filed on behalf of the petitioner by his learned advocate on 10.06.2025. The material on record would go to show that on 10.06.2025 itself, the matter was reserved for orders and the impugned order was passed on 16.06.2025. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is required to be set - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9900 CRL.P No. 102736 of 2025 aside on the short ground of not considering the statement of objections filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Competent Authority. 8. In addition to the same, the order impugned has been passed, for the reason that the petitioner is indulged in committing the offences punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The two cases registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act were in the years 2017 and 2018. After the year 2018, no case has been registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act. For the purpose of invoking Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, sufficient material should be made available to the Competent Authority, which would prima facie show that the person, as against whom action is proposed under Section 55 of the Act, is above to commit the offences. In the absence of sufficient material, merely for the reason that there was a proposal from the Police Officer, the competent authority, without application of mind, is not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9900 CRL.P No. 102736 of 2025 supposed to pass orders under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act. 9. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made in the petition needs to be granted. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 16.06.2025, passed by respondent No.2, the Assistant Commissioner, in proceedings bearing No.Kam/ MAG/ GADIPARU/ 13/ 2025-26 in excise of its power under Section 55(a) of the Karnataka Police Act, is quashed. (iii) In light of the disposal of the petition, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE VNP / CT: BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 22