NAFEESA Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) T.M.Sameer, son of the petitioner, was detained as per Ext.P2 order of detention dated 27.4.2015 issued by the District Magistrate, Kasaragod under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'KAAPA'). The order of detention was executed on 16.5.2015. On the basis of the report made by the Advisory Board, the order of detention was confirmed as per the order dated 20.7.2015. The detention order was passed on the ground that the detenu is a "known rowdy" as defined under Section 2(p) of the KAAPA and that he was regularly involving in anti-social activities.

(2.) In Ext.P2 order of detention, eight crimes registered against the detenu were mentioned. One of the crimes was under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, it cannot be taken into account for the purpose of considering the detenu as a "known rowdy". The last of the crimes was under Section 20(b)(ii)A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Since it is not shown that any notification was issued by the Government making an offence under the NDPS Act as one of the offences under the definition of "known rowdy" under Section 2(p) of the KAAPA, that crime also cannot be taken into account. Out of the balance six cases, in two cases, the detenu was acquitted even before the passing of the order of detention. The third crime mentioned in the order of detention, namely, Crime No.112 of 2012 of Hosdurg Police Station was settled between the defacto complainant and the detenu and as per Ext.P6 judgment dated 26.6.2015 in Crl.M.C.No.3870 of 2015, the final report filed in that case and the proceedings therein were quashed by this Court. It is also submitted that in the fourth crime mentioned in the order of detention, namely, Crime No.394 of 2012, final report was filed and after trial, the detenu was acquitted by the trial court on 4.7.2015, after passing the order of detention.

(3.) On the basis of the acquittal in three cases and quashing of the final report in another case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sufficient number of cases are not there to classify the detenu as a "known rowdy".