W.P. (Crl.) No. 413 of 2013. Case: Fazaludin Vs State of Kerala and Others. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | W.P. (Crl.) No. 413 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Renjith Thampan Senior Advocate and M.V. Anandan, Adv. and For Respondents: K.I. Abdul Rasheed Addl. Director General of Prosecution |
| Judges | Antony Dominic and P.D. Rajan, JJ. |
| Issue | Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 - Sections 2, 2(a), 2(p), 2(p)(i)(iii), 2(p)(iii), 2(t), 3, 3(2), 3(3), 7(4) |
| Citation | 2014 CriLJ 1310, 2014 (1) KHC 14, 2014 (1) KLJ 262 |
| Judgement Date | November 13, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Judgment:
Antony Dominic, J.
-
Petitioner is the father of Shafeek (hereinafter referred to as the detenu for short). Detenu is an activist of Communist party of India and is the Branch Secretary of Punalur Market Road Branch of the party. He is also an activist of All India Youth Federation in Punalur. He was accused in Crime Nos. 949 of 2008, 902 of 2009, 1296 of 2010, 1319 of 2010, 1136 of 2011, 146 of 2013 and 147 of 2013, all registered at Punalur Police Station for offences under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Pleadings show that narrating the involvement of the detenu in the aforesaid cases, 4th respondent made Ext. P4 report to the 3rd respondent on 16/02/2013. On the basis of the said report, additional 6th respondent submitted Ext. P6 report under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) to the second respondent. In Ext. P6 report, second respondent was requested to initiate action against the detenu under the Act for classifying him as a known rowdy under Section 2(p) of the Act and to detain him under Section 3 thereof.
-
On the basis of the report thus received, second respondent initiated action under the Act and issued order dated 27/05/2013 classifying the detenu as a known rowdy and ordering his detention as recommended in Ext. P6. Ext. P1, P2 and P3 are the memo for executing the detention order, the grounds of detention and the Jail Admission Authorisation, which were all issued on 27/05/2013 in pursuance to the detention order. Based on the detention order, the detenu was arrested and detained on 09/06/2013 and since then, he is undergoing detention. It is in this background, this writ petition has been filed by his father seeking to impugn the order of detention and praying for a writ of habeas corpus to set the detenu at liberty.
-
We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Director General of Prosecution, who appeared for the respondents.
-
The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that Section 3(3) of the Act was not complied with, that the detenu was entitled to the protection of the Vth proviso to Section 2(p), that Crime Nos. 146 and 147 of 2013 in which the detenu was acquitted on 23/09/2013 and 09/09/2013 by Exts. P22 and P23 judgments respectively should not have been relied on, that relevant documents were not supplied to the detenu, that the order is vitiated for malafides of the 4th respondent and that the order is bad for absence of subjective and objective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
-
Referring to the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents, learned ADGP sought to contradict each one of these contentions and he also made available the files maintained by the respondents in order to substantiate his submissions.
-
The first contention raised is that Section 3(3) of the Act was not complied with. Learned counsel contended that Section 3(3) of the Act provides that the detention order shall be approved by the Government within 12 days of the issuance of the order. It was contended that the detention order issued on 27/05/2013 was approved by the Government only on 19/06/2013 and therefore, according to him, Section 3(3) is violated. Section 3(3) of the Act reads thus:
-
Power to make orders for detaining Known Goondas and Known Rowdies.-
(1) xxx
(2) xxx
(3) When any order is made under this section by the authorised officer under sub-section (2), he shall forthwith report the fact to the Government and the Director General of Police, Kerala, together with a copy of the order and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W.P.(C). Nos. 4957 of 2015 (T), 7993 and 10458 of 2015. Case: Thejas Vs Inspector General of Police. High Court of Kerala (India)
...under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. Relying on the decisions in Vijayamma v. State of Kerala (2014 (4) KLT 563) and Fazludhin v. State of Kerala (2014 (1) KHC 14 (DB)), the Advisory Board held that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the authority under Section 15(1) of the KAAPA would not be ......
-
W.P.(C). Nos. 4957 of 2015 (T), 7993 and 10458 of 2015. Case: Thejas Vs Inspector General of Police. High Court of Kerala (India)
...under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. Relying on the decisions in Vijayamma v. State of Kerala (2014 (4) KLT 563) and Fazludhin v. State of Kerala (2014 (1) KHC 14 (DB)), the Advisory Board held that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the authority under Section 15(1) of the KAAPA would not be ......