RAJITHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions which arise for consideration in this Writ Petition are:

(2.) In Exhibit P2 order of detention, five cases registered under S. 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act against the detenu were taken into account for arriving at the satisfaction that he is a known goonda. At the time of arrest on 1.4.2014, admittedly the order of detention and the grounds of detention were served on the detenu. The case of the petitioner is that there was no proper compliance of S. 7(1) of the KAAPA. Section 7(1) says that when a person is arrested in pursuance of a detention order, the officer arresting him shall read out the detention order to him and give him a copy of such order. According to the petitioner, the order of detention was not read over to the detenu. This contention is denied in the counter affidavit. It is specifically contended that the order of detention was read over to the detenu at the time of arrest. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution placed before us the files which would show that the detenu endorsed on the files that the order of detention was read over to him at the time of arrest. He has also signed and endorsed that he received the copies of the order of detention, grounds of detention and the documents relied upon in the grounds of detention. There is no ground to believe that the order of detention was not read over to the detenu at the time of his arrest. The official acts shall be deemed to have been performed in a proper and legal manner unless it is shown otherwise.

(3.) Sri. Vinod Madhavan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order of confirmation under S. 10(4) of KAAPA did not mention that the order of detention was read over to the detenu. There is no such legal requirement that the order of confirmation should specifically state so. S. 10(4) of the KAAPA provides that in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit. In the order of confirmation, the Government need not mention that all the steps which were legally required to be taken at the time of arrest and thereafter were taken. The order of confirmation is one which should be passed on receipt of the report of the Advisory Board. If the Advisory Board gives the opinion that there is no sufficient cause for detention, the order of detention shall be revoked forthwith. If the opinion of the Advisory Board is that there is sufficient cause for detention of the person concerned, the Government may confirm the order of detention and continue the detention of the person concerned. Even after the Advisory Board opines that there is sufficient ground for detention, the Government have the power to revoke the order of detention at any time under S. 13 of the Act. In an order of such a nature, as provided under S. 10(4) of the Act, the Government is not bound to narrate each and every step taken after passing the order of detention till the order of confirmation. An order of confirmation is not a diary of events that took place after passing the order of detention till the confirmation of the detention of the person concerned. It is the record of the Government having received me opinion of the Advisory Board and having decided to confirm the order based on the opinion of the Advisory Board. For the aforesaid reasons, we reject the contention raised by the petitioner in this regard.