Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. - (1.) The petitioner has called into question the second respondent Deputy Commissioner's order of detention, dated 01.01.2016 (Annexure -B), the State Government's order, dated 08.01.2016 approving the said detention order and the order, dated 04.02.2016 (Annexure -D) continuing his detention for a further period of 12 months.
(2.) The petitioner's learned advocate, Sri Ashok B. Mulage submits that the petitioner is a man of thumb impression. The grounds of detention were not explained to him in Kannada. He submits that if the petitioner were to be only informed of the grounds of detention, he would have got a representation submitted to the State Government. He further submits that the petitioner was not informed of opportunity of showing his innocence before the Advisory Board. He was simply and mechanically produced before the Advisory Board without being informed of what he has to do before the Advisory Board.
(3.) Sri Mulage relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bharathi S. Prabhu v/s. State of Karnataka reported in : 2015 (3) KCCR 2060. Para -9 read out by him from the said decision is extracted hereinbelow: "9. Obviously, none of the offences alleged in the above cases are punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. All the offences alleged are under the Karnataka Police Act. That being so, the definition clause of Sec. 2(g) of the Act is not at all attracted, thereby the impugned order is vitiated for invoking a wrong provision of law and the detention order is illegal.";