SAKUNTHALA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the wife of the detenue, challenging Ext.P1 detention order dated 28.11.2012 and for setting him at liberty.

(2.) THE petitioner is the wife of Kumar @ Kallakumar, who is the detenue in the case, who has been detained in Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 2007 (hereinafter called the 'KAAPA Act'), on the basis of Ext.P2 report, requesting to declare the husband of the petitioner as a known-goonda and detain him under the provisions of the Act. The 3rd respondent sent Ext.P2 report to the 2nd respondent, and 2nd respondent after consideration of the materials produced before him, declared the detenue as known-goonda and passed Ext.P1 order, and that was sent to Government for approval, and the same was approved by the Government as per order of approval No.102664/SSA5/2012/Home dated 10.12.2012. Ext.P3 detention order was issued directing the detenue to be detained in Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram and accordingly he was arrested on 01.12.2012. Thereafter, the husband of petitioner filed an application to the Government for releasing him and after getting the report from the Advisory Board, Government by order dated 29.01.2013 approved and confirmed the order of detention of the detenue as per Ext.P5 order.

(3.) THE 3rd respondent filed counter contending as follows: The petition is not maintainable. None of the grounds mentioned in the writ petition are sufficient to set aside or quash the detention order, Ext.P1 and the confirmation order passed by the Government, Ext.P5. The detenue is having a history sheet of known de-predator of Cantonment Police Station, and is having strong antecedents of criminal activities since 1981. He is engaged in illegal trading of ganja and illicit liquor and he was accused in 8 criminal cases registered under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act(hereinafter called the 'NDPS Act'), Kerala Abkari Act, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (hereinafter called the 'PDPP Act') within a period from 2006- 2012 of which in two cases, he has been convicted and other five cases, trial is progressing at present and in the remaining one case, though the commission of the offence committed by the accused has been established beyond doubt, the same is pending for some technical reasons. On the basis of the report submitted by this respondent, the 2nd respondent, after considering the materials available, passed Ext.P1 detention order dated 28.11.2012 and the same was executed on 01.12.2012, and the grounds for detention along with the documents were served on the detenue evidenced by Exts.R3 (a), (b) and (c) and the copy report submitted by this respondents was also given to the detenue and acknowledgment obtained evidenced by Ext.R3(d). The detaining authority has considered all the aspects and applied his mind before passing the order, and rightly come to the conclusion that he is a known-goonda and passed Ext.P1 order. That was sent to the government for approval and it was approved by the government. The representation submitted by the detenue through jail authorities was considered by the government after getting report from the Advisory Board, and then passed Ext.P5 order and so, the procedure adopted by the authorities is perfectly legal and does not suffer from any infirmity, and the order passed is perfectly justifiable and there is no ground made out for setting aside the orders, and he prayed for dismissal of the application.