MANIKANTAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram passed Ext.P1 order dated 3.4.2013, under S. 15(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'KAAPA'), against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a "known-goonda". By Ext.Pl order, the petitioner was restrained from entering into Attingal Sub Division for a period of six months. Challenging Ext.Pl order, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation before the Advisory Board. Along with Ext.P2 representation, the petitioner produced Annexures 1 to 25.

(2.) The Advisory Board passed Ext.P3 order dated 25.5.2013 dismissing the Original Petition which was registered on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner.

(3.) The Inspector General of Police took into account four crimes registered against the petitioner at Kadakkavoor Police Station (Crime Nos. 366/2012, 400/2012, 475/2012 and 564/2012). The Inspector General of Police arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is a "known goonda" as defined under S. 2(o) of KAAPA. The Advisory Board noticed that in Crime No. 564/2012, the police filed a refer report and, therefore, that crime was excluded from the purview of consideration. The Advisory Board also excluded Crime No. 366/2012 from the purview of consideration on the ground that the witnesses to the seizure mahazar (pertaining to seizure of sand) are none other than the police officers who cannot be termed as independent witnesses so as to attract the proviso to S. 2(o) of KAAPA. The Advisory Board relied on the decision in Vinija v. State of Kerala, 2009 3 KerLT 110 to arrive at that conclusion. The Advisory Board held that still the order of externment would be valid since the two cases registered against the petitioner are sufficient to hold that he is a "known goonda".