{"id":227256,"date":"2009-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009"},"modified":"2016-07-08T05:02:00","modified_gmt":"2016-07-07T23:32:00","slug":"muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Muneer Sharieff vs Commissioner Of Police on 2 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Muneer Sharieff vs Commissioner Of Police on 2 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V.Gopalagowda And K.Bhakthavatsala<\/div>\n
\u00a33\u00bb\n\nWT3(HC) N0. 58 \/2009\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009 \n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA Gow\ufb01p,  \"' \n\nAND\n\nTHE I-ION'BLE Dr. JUSTICE 1:.  2 \" \n\nwnrr PETITION'(H.C}'--I\u00a76.58\/\u00a7:}{}9u. if  \n\nBETWEEN:\n\nMuneer Sharieff.\n\nS \/ o.Jamaiuddin Sharieff,\nAged 48 years,  \n29, Sm Main,  '  4\nPillanna Garden, _ 44 ,_ \n11 Stage, Opp.KEB C)ff1'r.;:\u00e9;_\n\n. . .PETITIONER\n\n(By Sr:i.Kiran S.};e;va1:; Aemfj;   \n\nAND:\n\n1. ,COmm1SS_i0n;3.; of'. Police;  \"\"\" \" 'V\n\nBangalqre city,' .4 \nBar3.ga'10re,_  %  \"\n\nBy S1'i5ShSnkaf_~VI:S'_i(*;\u00a7iri.;\n\nV Smte of Kam__atal\u20ac\u00e91.\n\nS _I.3y\" Secretary, }_\n\n_, , ..  _and Transport Dept.\n\n\"'\u00abVi(}~K1ana Soudha,\n\n  Bang.'a_lOre~'560 001.\n\n\n\nLn)\n\nWP(HC) No.58\/2009\n\nThat the petitioner is brother of the detenu and he is\n\nconcerned with personal Iiberty of the detenu. The detentrihas\n\nbeen detained in Central Jail, Bangalore' in pursuance_;of\n\nof detention passed by the 15% Respondent under Section\u00bb L\u00a71e7  0 <\/pre>\n
Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Acgtivitiesg of Boot–‘E-.eggeV1;As,i’<\/p>\n
Drug Offenders, Garnbiers. Goondas, Irnrnoral. Traffic<\/p>\n
and 8111111 Grabbers Act’ 1985 (hereinafter referred   ‘the<\/p>\n
Goondas Act’).\n<\/p>\n
The grounds of .detention…\\}vas*- “to the detenu.<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 ‘__’\u00a3t1e:”detenti_onj or\u00e9ler””dated 26.02.2009<\/p>\n
(Annexure  .of\u00abd_’etention at Annexure ‘B’ and also
\nforwarded the pp detention_jf_0ordei*.  to the State Government
\n(Respondent. No.2)\ufb02’fo1_’d approAV’a1r”:The Respondent No.2. within the<\/p>\n
speci\ufb01ed  of 1200 ‘days’ of detention order’ approved the<\/p>\n
detentioii dated 04.03.2009 (Annexure ‘{3′) and also<\/p>\n
 V0 referred  n1a_?ter’:–j_.o:; the Advisory Board.<\/p>\n
 0:’ petitioner has urged that the detention<\/p>\n
 ‘ ”order\/deon\ufb01:rination of detention order made against the detenu are<\/p>\n
‘ii1e’ga1_pvarid void on the following ounds:<\/p>\n
WP(HC) No.58\/2009<\/p>\n
(a) that the order of detention made by Respondent No.l is<\/p>\n
erroneous and illegal;\n<\/p>\n
(b) that the approval of the detention  <\/p>\n
Respondent No.2 is also bad in law;\n<\/p>\n
(C) that the impugned order at Arinexures “‘A”:<\/p>\n
been passed without applieationl\u00e9of mind  Aeon’trary-~<\/p>\n
law;\n<\/p>\n
[(3) that there is no valid and s_u_l:isis_ting auti’1\u00abo1fi_AsaAti\u00a7on order
\nby the State Gove:nrr;–ent–‘_VAas .A proviso to Sub-\n<\/p>\n
Section {2} of Section 3    in favour of\n\n  'power of detention\n\nthe Respondent ._1_\\Io.\n\nunder Sec_ti--:)n  of\n\n<\/pre>\n
(e) thatilthere are hold that the provisions of<\/p>\n
Goondas  are attracted;\n<\/p>\n
(f) tiiat :thepvdetenu.,_.d__oes not know to read or Write either<\/p>\n
p’  Qr\ufb01annada and therefore, the order of detention<\/p>\n
    English \/ Kannada is bad in law;\n<\/p>\n
_p (g)  as there is no proof placed on record to show that the<\/p>\n
 .. grouna:is of the detention order was read over and
\n x explained by the Respondent No.3 [Senior
\n Superintendent, (Eentral Prison) by way of compliance of<\/p>\n
 _ ‘Act:\n<\/p>\n
WP{HC] No.58\/2009<\/p>\n
the mandatory requirement of law. an adverse inference<\/p>\n
may be drawn;\n<\/p>\n
[h] that many of the documents {in all 376 pages} relied\ufb02jpon<\/p>\n
while passing the detention order are in  _<\/p>\n
Kannada translation thereof was not as la~<\/p>\n
result of which, the detenu’s right’ ‘to’make represenVtation’–a<\/p>\n
is affected and thus infringed the de’te.1’1u’s._fundarnenta1]i<\/p>\n
right under Article 22(5) of the4__Consti_.tu’t.i0n of <\/p>\n
[i] that the Respondent No.2 W_hile:_appro\u00a7irigl’ _order of
\ndetention made by i\u00a7espon_dentv”No.,.l’;’–speci\ufb01cally relied
\nupon 22 incidents, but ‘d_oc’urI-ielnts  Serial Nos.6
\nand 22 of thegrounds” Voffdetenti.Q.r1vrelating to D.J.Ha1li
\nPolice statipi\ufb01i  i\\f.:;.”1’4;i’k’:2o0’2’a:id K.G.Halli Police<\/p>\n
Statio’nl’in’Afojifimefi\ufb01ioi301’\/2O(\u00a7}S’fWere not furnished to the
\ndetenu: ‘– S V if if h S<\/p>\n
0} that the'”irnpugned7,detention order has been passed<\/p>\n
contrary to subsection [1] of Section 3 of the Goondas<\/p>\n
{R}. order reveals that the detenu is being<\/p>\n
detained _forAanti–social, public peace and order though<\/p>\n
 theynot fall within the scope of Section 3(1) of the<\/p>\n
V’  ‘Go-ondas Act;\n<\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
WP(HC) No. 58\/2009<\/p>\n
{E} that the order of detention furnished in English conflicts<\/p>\n
the grounds of detention mentioned in the Kannada<\/p>\n
version;\n<\/p>\n
(In) that under Section 10 of the G0ondas\u00ab~~-Ae\u00bbt,_’__t’the<\/p>\n
Respondent No.2 was required to refer    M<\/p>\n
detention of the detenu to the _Actvi_s0ry”  Kt<\/p>\n
Respondent No.2 has faiied to state iwh\u00e9nit–th:e_ni–at’te’r__WaSt<\/p>\n
referred to the Advisory Board andvvhat steps vvere takenh<\/p>\n
and what records were forwarded;\n<\/p>\n
(n) that the Advisory Bo’ar_d ditt”not’:eo’f1s_ider the request of
\nthe detenu to take assistanC\u20ac_p(i’f:&1 when the detenu
\nwas heard on 25.03.20-09; ‘ ‘ ” ” ‘ <\/p>\n
4. The petitiorief1f_.,has. :u1’ged..’_the foliowing additional grounds:<\/p>\n
(1) thativthei detain’ing:_’authority faited to specificatty bring<\/p>\n
3+0 the\u00e9tt\u00e9iiotiee..’–ofA’thVe”..detenu that he has the right to
\n_ t__a re”pre.seritation to the detaining authority
\nA    2 period of 12 days from the date of<\/p>\n
it  hdetentvion-,\/untii the approval of the detention order by<\/p>\n
t ‘ ,__’vthe_ Government of Karnataka;<\/p>\n
 p  the detenu’s representation made to Respondent<\/p>\n
Vd*_No.1 should have been forwarded to the State<\/p>\n
‘ Government for consideration;\n<\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
wpmc) No.58\/2009<\/p>\n
(iii) that the Respondent No.1 erred in considering the
\ndetenu’s representation dated 25.03.240.0i9__’i~.Vand<\/p>\n
rejecting the same by issuing endorseme_nt__’__i’dated<\/p>\n
28.04.2009 though the State Government <\/p>\n
the order of detention and_con_firrnedttbyiorde-r’_’dated <\/p>\n
04.03.2009:\n<\/p>\n
(iv) that there is more  days deiay <\/p>\n
the detenu’s representati-on dated ~ .25.03.2009 by
\nRespondent No.1: who had_ :no..auVth.ority to consider the
\nsame as he became func-tu’s:’Vofiic’io’; <\/p>\n
5. The Respo;%:idei\u00e9it;s_V  31: chavejg\u00e9\ufb02ledi’Statement of Objections
\npraying for dismiie:-_sai_ the   as under:\n<\/p>\n
(a) that.Ath’edeteVn{i  a group of uneducated youths<\/p>\n
of <\/p>\n
disturbances infthe area and created differences between<\/p>\n
G.,gHalli’ and and has caused communal<\/p>\n
_\u00a3St1n:r__1gi and Tabiiq..=..Iamat sects of Muslim;<\/p>\n
(b) and his gang were attacking innocent
\n citizensufantd severai cases have been registered against<\/p>\n
the ci.eteni1;\n<\/p>\n
;  V’ ..(c}’t–hat the detenu is Rowdy Sheeter since 2004;<\/p>\n
  (53 that all the grounds\/additionai grounds urged in the<\/p>\n
petition are denied as false.\n<\/p>\n
Ls<\/p>\n
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner  the<\/p>\n
grounds as pleaded and stated above and also cited’itheir.fo}.1o\\i}ingu <\/p>\n
decisions:\n<\/p>\n
[ii]<\/p>\n
WP(HC) No.58\/2009<\/p>\n
AIR 1970 so 675 zJAYAi\\.fARAYAN’~.sUi{UL\u00b0’ys. STATE<\/p>\n
OF’ WEST BENf\u00a7AJ,] oridlthethat  nppropriate
\nGovernment must    exercise<\/p>\n
judgmen:’\u00ab\u00ab[:Vt}1ereon g  it to Advisory<\/p>\n
  rendered in WP (I-IC]<\/p>\n
NofiQ9,!2oo3  met; Vs. THE STATE or<\/p>\n
 i\u00a7zaR_NATAI\u00a3A_.AND OTHERS] on the point that 28 days<\/p>\n
.,gie1ay_d””in disposing the representation was not<\/p>\n
‘  and therefore the detention order was set<\/p>\n
it asidei<\/p>\n
” to “(my<\/p>\n
 SCC {Cm 4255 {NARINDER SINGH SURE Vs.
\nUNEON OF’ ENDIA AND OTHERS) on the point that un-<\/p>\n
explained delay of 20 days in considering the<\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
(iv)<\/p>\n
WP(HC} No. 58\/2009<\/p>\n
representation was held violative of Article 22(5) of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India;\n<\/p>\n
Un~reported decision rendered in W?\n<\/p>\n
86\/2004 (sum NOOR MOHJAM>MED_IN1SaR Vsi, . <\/p>\n
OF KARNATAKA AND oTHi\u00ab:_Rs1-Aon3thc_p\u00a2ini ti;1:atDI’1:;n~<\/p>\n
compliance of 1ega}’iV’r_equi1;eI_nent <\/p>\n
authority was held bad as
\n1983 SCC   ISHWARLAL
\nDAVE AND ANDTHER  GUJARAT AND<\/p>\n
 ;1;o’.19_1D the  “the: State Government,<\/p>\n
kee\ufb01ing\ufb02tthe Espres:\u00a2;ntatiion’gv\\}ithout being considered<\/p>\n
 it.:v.at”_ter_ receipt of opinion of Advisory
\n‘Board was  ”  law;\n<\/p>\n
-,i98i’ scc.’.”(c;Fi)V’21\u00a771. (KIRIT KUMAR CHAD\/IAN LAL<\/p>\n
 2g{IJNDAL1YA””‘V\u00e9. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS} on<\/p>\n
V  \u00ab  ~Doi.nt:..that the representation of the detenue must<\/p>\n
bettcaongsidered by the detaining authority, but the<\/p>\n
” representation was rejected by Secretary was held<\/p>\n
 bad in law and the continued detention of the detenue<\/p>\n
becomes void;\n<\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
(Vii)<\/p>\n
(VH1)<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
VVP(HC] No.58\/2009<\/p>\n
Decision rendered in Criminal Appeal Nos.”\/’23 &
\n724\/2009 (THAHIRA HARIS ETC. Vs. GOVERNMENT<\/p>\n
01:’ KARNATAKA \u20ac32 OTHERS) on the \ufb01le of:<\/p>\n
Court of India, on the point that olauses”t=5)’  <\/p>\n
Article 22 of the Constitutio_n…of Indiaddsatgegtiardsh theu <\/p>\n
detenue and he has the right to”‘beiVsnpi)1ie’d {xi}:-:\u00a2\u00a7?1.Qf<\/p>\n
the documents. statenieiits and otiier iina’te133ajs~relied-”<\/p>\n
upon in the grounds of hhd\u00e9-i:\u20ac\u00a7Ii’ti’OF1 Without  delay.
\nThe predominant*–\u00ab.oE:jec’t_ ofgjeoniriiuhnieating the grounds
\nof detention is towanable. Athe”.dete’n\u00a2ue at the earliest
\nopportuhnit;Qw’ ‘_to_w*ArnaI{e :_4Veff\u00e9etiv’e” and meaningful
\n;fepresent.atioA:I1h’ against his detention;<\/p>\n
AIR -1981_\u00b0A\u00a7$Cg..,,,:”t*cri) 287 (KAMLA KANYALAL<\/p>\n
_ _ KHUSEIALAM iz’.s.V”””sTATI\u00ab: OF MAHARASHTRA AND<\/p>\n
3  AAN”.O’\ufb01jiER)’VoVn”‘the point that grounds of detention not<\/p>\n
it  by documents and materials and 25<\/p>\n
 dayishdeiay in disposai of detenue’s and continued<\/p>\n
‘detention of the detenue was held void;<\/p>\n
AIR 2000 so 2504 (STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND<\/p>\n
OTHERS Vs. SANTOSH SHANKAR ACHARYA) on the<\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
ll<\/p>\n
WP(HC} No. 58\/2009<\/p>\n
point of nonwcommunication by the detaining authority<\/p>\n
to the effect that he has right to make represemtation<\/p>\n
to the detaining authority amounts to <\/p>\n
right under Artic1et’i22{5) of V the Const1tutilon’l::oi’india= , <\/p>\n
and thereby vitiates the order of_’deteri’tion,l.\u00b0- l<\/p>\n
7. On the other hand, the; learned ‘Advocate <\/p>\n
Ashok Haranahalli, submitted that””there is ndviolatioii  clause<\/p>\n
{5} of Article 22 of the Constitutionllllof’India’-._and the provisions of
\nthe Goondas Act. He further  grounds of<\/p>\n
detention along ‘W~*;th._tl’_I1e clAocunf\u00a7.ents\u00ab”‘h_aV.C. been supplied to the<\/p>\n
detenu and the’ ujridlerstood\ufb02 the orders and grounds.
\nFurther, there is no delay.lin~._leoniirming the order of detention by<\/p>\n
the State.G0Verrit;:1ent;.Ilieihaslleited the following decisions:
\n[i}..\u00ab.?-C. AER 1990=.S{vZ_’ 176 (MADAN LALANAND Vs. UNION OF<\/p>\n
 OTHERS} on the point that the order of
\nA cannot be rendered invalid on the ground of<\/p>\n
delay”; when there are no Iaches or negligence on the
\n\u00a7<\/p>\n
W  ,_   <\/p>\n
Vv’P{i~iC} No.58\/2009<\/p>\n
{i} Whether the impugned order of detention approftredtibey<\/p>\n
the Government under su’o–Seetion {3} of  _<\/p>\n
the Goondas Act is valid and legal ‘P<\/p>\n
(ii) Whether the detaining  <\/p>\n
the grounds on wh1Ch\u00bbi’the order” of detention <\/p>\n
made, as required undeur=.\u00e9er:tionV”8. oi”‘t:he.’:'{3:oondas
\nAct? _  .. .. ,<\/p>\n
[iii}’ Whether the State with
\nSection  W   A V<\/p>\n
{iv} Whether  grounds to reiease the<\/p>\n
 gr’ W\u00a7&\u00a5MAt”” ‘L’,<\/p>\n
Point NoV,{ii)i;’  the affirmative.\n<\/p>\n
‘*._Point Noiiii): In the affirmative.<\/p>\n
“:i:V’_?oini:_.No.[iv}: In the negative.<\/p>\n
WP[HC) No.58\/2009<\/p>\n
10. For the purpose of converiience, We take up all the four<\/p>\n
points together for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
11. For the purpose of convenience, it is useful toe_eXc’erWolt V’<\/p>\n
Section 3 of the Goondas Act, which readsthus: <\/p>\n
“3. Power to Make 0rde1_f:s”~rDetaini;1g.\u00a2e1ftai\ufb01'”
\nPersons.– {1} The state Cgliii\/’f’il’I1Il{1\u20acn’t.’  if
\nsatisfied with respec:t.”t\u00abo any  or
\noffender or gambler or gloorivdaJor__.irrifiioi\u00b0a_l traffic
\noffender or 4SiL1b–grabVber\u00a5 a ‘view to<\/p>\n
prevent _1V1:i.IY1 iiiiel\ufb01fom acting,’  it ‘a’i’iy manner<\/p>\n
prej1;diicial’*ito thema.iritenan-c.e._of public order. it
\nis nece_ssary–“.so_’Vto dot.”-I1__1ake an order directing<\/p>\n
that site}: pe:’sons’ be detained.\n<\/p>\n
‘  2(2)’ if, having regard to the circumstances
\n  likely to prevail in any area Within
\n__ihe  of the jurisdiction of a District<\/p>\n
  a Commissioner of Police, the State
\n is satisfied that it is necessary so as<\/p>\n
V to  it may, by order in writing, direct that
\n  such period as may be specified in the
\n order, such District Magistrate or Commissioner<\/p>\n
of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-<\/p>\n
}….i
\nU1<\/p>\n
WP{HC) No. 58\/2009<\/p>\n
section (i) Exercise the power conferred by the <\/p>\n
sub~section.\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the period specified in the   <\/p>\n
made by the State Government under <\/p>\n
section shall not, in the firstainstance. exceed” <\/p>\n
three months, but the State C?.ove\u00a7:An1ff1enat. may if  it<\/p>\n
satisfied as aforesaid that_it_ is necessary so 71,9. do’,<\/p>\n
amend such order to extendysuch upe2′–i.od_; from”’ ‘<\/p>\n
time tot time by any perio_(i\ufb02r’ivot’egcceedingithree<\/p>\n
months at any one’ti_n’ie.\n<\/p>\n
(3) When any order.:is’\u00bbm’ade_unt!evr’tJ;ii’s section
\nby an of\ufb01cerji. _fn.entio11ged7 inv su:b–vS\u00a2\u00a7:\u00a7iion (2), he
\nshall f9r’t2\u00a5s,_mti\u00bb.—‘:’-_;~.\u00a5:p.\u00a2;;;:1::’  ‘fact; * to the State
\nGo%.;ern_ment”.t9g’etherl_lvv\u00a7th the grounds on which
\nthe ‘order ‘hash’beenlVniade and such other<\/p>\n
particularsas h_is7op’in’ion. have a bearing on the<\/p>\n
nfiatter andlno. such order shall remain in force for<\/p>\n
 than. twelve days after the making thereof,<\/p>\n
V  V   meantime, it has been approved by<\/p>\n
” . the State Government ”\n<\/p>\n
l2.44″We”  carefully examined the order of detention dated
\n.1  passed by the Comrnissioner of Police, Bangalore, in<\/p>\n
 his powekinfr subsection (2) of Section 3 of the<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
VVP{HC) No.58\/2009<\/p>\n
Qandas Act. The Commissioner of Police (respondent. No.1″-hfeprein},<\/p>\n
after elaborately referring to the various criminal  filedn<\/p>\n
against the detenu by three Police .Stat.ions5_”vialflifixG.’_fHa!.1ilhj it<\/p>\n
_,c, 1<\/p>\n
Devarajeevanahalli and Bharathinagar  <\/p>\n
Ea’<\/p>\n
Commercial Street Police Station\ufb01 .fo’1t.__various offelnces:punishable’ C<\/p>\n
“” ok 9 “‘  ‘ — ‘
\nunder  16, 17, 18 and 22 Aof.t_he_ ‘ofthe l”r1d,i_an_Penai Code
\nissued order of detention under.sLil3\u20acSection.iC’2}of Section 3 of the
\nGoondas Act. In the-gvl-ound’s””of: details of cases<\/p>\n
registered against\u00a7–.,the:Tdeteriai are lf’l7iC?::I’:.J[‘i’0VIlCd; at S}. Nos] to 22.<\/p>\n
The copy   detention and the supporting
\ndocuments are fumi’shed;’to ‘de’tenue to facilitate him to submit<\/p>\n
his representation to the St’ate'”Covernment as well as the Advosory<\/p>\n
 “iTIlhei,.Ad.etenu, hisdletter dated 17.3.2009, authorised one<\/p>\n
 him in the proceedings. On 25.3.2009,<\/p>\n
C  detenti h_as’r:\u00a3}_iade his representation to the respondent No.1\u00bb<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
.. _:’_’\u00ab.,.Conimissioriei: of Police. The Cominissioner of Police. on perusal of<\/p>\n
 thejinate’1*iai placed before him, reached the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
C.  .detent1’s activities have disturbed the activities of public and his<\/p>\n
I
\n%<\/p>\n
tithe.\n<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
WP(HC) No. 58\/2009<\/p>\n
activities are detrimental to peace and order in many areas of the<\/p>\n
City, the detenu was terrorising the people; there is no to<\/p>\n
the people in the areas and if the detenu is allowedto <\/p>\n
would continue to indulge in crimina1…..cases_”anthcontinue*-toll’<\/p>\n
terrorise people, assault and create inseAcurity.’to the’~peopleli’*ofl’the<\/p>\n
locality. In nutshell, the Commissioner of Police  thee’<\/p>\n
conclusion that the detenue will be a_Ti’.’nr_eat to the l_’Svociety and the
\nordinary Police have failed to-\u00ab.cihecl:l:_ the  criminal activities
\nand therefore it became imperative  authority to<\/p>\n
resort to the power” red   sub–Section (2) of<\/p>\n
Section 3 of to 2(g] of the Goondas
\nAct, “Go0nda”‘  either by himself or as a
\nmember of leader’ of a..gang,Vlhlab1tually commits or attempts to
\neonimit  alaets\u00bbzpthex\ufb02corrirnission of offence punishable under<\/p>\n
chap_tergX’-\u00bb\/fl XVII or chapter XXII of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n
 =.__,Code {Central  of 1860). Annexure–A is the detention order<\/p>\n
_ zdated 26.2.20();S3’\/f\u00a35.’?i\ufb01e\u00a7l by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore.<\/p>\n
 dated 26.2.2009 contain the grounds of detention.<\/p>\n
  pursuance of sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
k._._._,i<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
VVP(HC) No. 58\/2009<\/p>\n
Goondas Act, the respondent No. .1 has immediateiy sub.rni.tted”–_ the<\/p>\n
report to the State Government together with  <\/p>\n
which the order of detention was madeemagnd other”partioz;3ars..Vas\u00bb1 <\/p>\n
required for approval. The order of dete1i:1’tio1’1. n1ade”‘t1nd”e-r “sL_1’b-<\/p>\n
Section (2) of Section 3 of the Goondas Actxtvill  i\u00a7r1…,.fOijc.e for<\/p>\n
period of 12 days from the  -order”  :v.jdete’ntion. On
\n28.2.2009, by way of compiiance   (3) of Section 3 of
\nthe Goondas Act.  grounds to the
\nGovernment.    dvetenirjdhas submitted his
\nrepresentation   \/Commissioner of Police.
\nAnnexure–0 made by the Government
\nin exercise of powerstinder sub\u00abSection {3} of Section 3<\/p>\n
of the Goondas Actrvapproveddthe detention order dated 26.2.2009.<\/p>\n
 Was “servedhon”the detenu on 7.3.2009 at 8.30 pm.<\/p>\n
‘Fher_’efore.’e.  delay in passing the order by the State<\/p>\n
2 V….’.Governn_1ent with:-.V_’regard to the confirmation of the detention order.<\/p>\n
 the respondkent No.1\/Commissioner of Poiice<\/p>\n
isstiiedg arrendorsement to the detenu rejecting his representation<\/p>\n
2. and intjmating that as per law, the detenu cannot engage an<\/p>\n
WP[HC) No.58\/2009<\/p>\n
Advocate to appear before the Advisory Board in the meeting fixed<\/p>\n
on 26.3.2009 at 2.00 p.111. The State Government. has4vco’r1:i_jp~1ived<\/p>\n
with Section 10 of the Goondas Act in referring the  <\/p>\n
Advisory Board. According to sub–SectionW{5} of _Se’ct,ioii  ‘of ”<\/p>\n
Goondas Act, a iegal practitioner hasino :_-legal\u00ab*:7i\u00a7ht”f,o”Vappear<\/p>\n
before the Advisory Board. As per’stib–Se’c.tion (4}i.’o’tf <\/p>\n
the proceedings of the Advisory Boa\u00e9rdnbanyd its”-y,\u00e9port.vVfexcepting
\nthat part of the report in which\u00ab.the.3_VAopin’ien’.oi’\u00abthe Advisory Board
\nis specified, shail be con\ufb01dent1’_a1_.V’t’   A n A A<\/p>\n
13. From the  is crystal clear that there is
\nno deiay or ‘V Iaches _:on..the”.par.t of the respondents\/authorities.
\n :,.e_of~. A. thettdvvgrounds of detention order and<\/p>\n
confirinatioii    detention order by the Government have<\/p>\n
:{d=.I::een ft1’rnished.”i:’if1″iere is no vioiation of clause (5) of Article<\/p>\n
 the ~ Constitution or any of the provision of the<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
WP(HC} No. 58\/2009<\/p>\n
Goondas Act. The decisions cited by the ieamed Counsel fog the<\/p>\n
petitioner are of no avail.\n<\/p>\n
14. i It is not out of piace to mention that on  M<\/p>\n
Advisory Board under the Goondas Act 1:.-age sent ‘a genoi\ufb01t to”-t11ed”*;<\/p>\n
Government opining that there are suffieiebntii groiin_ds.. for’ <\/p>\n
detention of the detenu under the -._’Ff,eVV’Vdec\u00a3’si’ons
\ncited by the ieamed Advocate ;—QenereJ”ai”e’-appiicaloleto  facts
\nand circumstances of the case.”4″‘\\?AV_e’   in\ufb01rmity in
\nthe impugned orders. 3  see  V the detenu at<\/p>\n
Iiberty.\n<\/p>\n
15. In the ‘following order:\n<\/p>\n
The Wait. Petition  and  same is hereby dismissed.<\/p>\n
Sd\/-5
\nJUDGE<\/p>\n
B:nV- ” . , . .<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Muneer Sharieff vs Commissioner Of Police on 2 November, 2009 Author: V.Gopalagowda And K.Bhakthavatsala \u00a33\u00bb WT3(HC) N0. 58 \/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA Gow\ufb01p, “‘ AND THE I-ION’BLE Dr. JUSTICE 1:. 2 ” […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-227256","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMuneer Sharieff vs Commissioner Of Police on 2 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Muneer Sharieff vs Commissioner Of Police on 2 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-07T23:32:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Muneer Sharieff vs Commissioner Of Police on 2 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-07T23:32:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2766,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Muneer Sharieff vs Commissioner Of Police on 2 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-07T23:32:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Muneer Sharieff vs Commissioner Of Police on 2 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Muneer Sharieff vs Commissioner Of Police on 2 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Muneer Sharieff vs Commissioner Of Police on 2 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-07T23:32:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Muneer Sharieff vs Commissioner Of Police on 2 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-07T23:32:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009"},"wordCount":2766,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009","name":"Muneer Sharieff vs Commissioner Of Police on 2 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-07T23:32:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muneer-sharieff-vs-commissioner-of-police-on-2-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Muneer Sharieff vs Commissioner Of Police on 2 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227256","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=227256"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227256\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227256"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227256"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227256"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}