SAMEENA BEEVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Petitioner challenges a preventive detention order issued under the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, for short, "KAAPA". Order of detention was issued on 05.05.2014 and it was executed on 30.05.2014. This Writ Petition, stated to be filed by the wife of the detenu, is instituted on 13.08.2014.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised three issues. He argued that the two counts of conviction taken against the detenu are sentences imposed on him pleading guilty before the competent criminal court and therefore, those sentences cannot be treated as resulting in an order under which he has been "made guilty", for the purpose of sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (p) of S. 2 of KAAPA. The second argument is that proceedings having been taken under S. 110 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the detenu is a habitual offender, mere was no room to further proceed under the provisions of KAAPA. Thirdly, he argued that the detenu is a permanent resident of Kottayam and is a temporary resident of Thiruvananthapuram and therefore, the District Magistrate, Kollam, did not have jurisdiction to pass an order under KAAPA having regard to the terms of S. 3(1) of that Act.

(3.) Per contra, the learned prosecutor argued that the findings of guilt and the resultant sentencing on the pleading of guilt have been rendered in two warrant cases, and it makes no difference whether the sentencing was on pleading guilty or after trial. It is further argued that the action taken under S. 110 Cr.P.C. was wholly insufficient and has. essentially fizzled out, as is apparent even on the face of the detention order which shows that even the notification of the order under S. 110 Cr.P.C. could not be duly served. He further argued that the District Magistrate, Kollam had authority within the format of S. 3(1) of KAAPA to pass the order of detention.