THEJAS Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in these Writ Petitions is: In order to pass an order under Section 15 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KAAPA') in cases where proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are taken against the person concerned, is it necessary that another case should be registered against him after the initiation of the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Since the question involved in all these Writ Petitions is the same, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) An order under Section 15(1) of the KAAPA was passed against Thejas, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4957 of 2015, on 9.1.2015, on the ground that the petitioner is a 'known rowdy" as defined under the KAAPA. The petitioner was involved in five cases registered at Dharmadam police station as Crime Nos.879/2012, 556/2013, 71/2014, 85/2014 and 275/2014. In the first among the aforesaid cases, the petitioner was acquitted even before the passing of the order under Section 15(1) of the KAAPA. Proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. were taken against the petitioner on 29.4.2014. It is stated that the petitioner was directed to execute a bond under Section 111 Cr.P.C. and he executed the bond accordingly. The last crime mentioned in the order of detention was allegedly committed on 17.4.2014 and the final report therein was filed on 21.5.2014. The petitioner is not involved in any other crime after the initiation of the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. In the order of detention, initiation of the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. has been mentioned. However, it is stated that to complete the proceedings therein, delay would occur and that an order under Section 15(1) of the KAAPA would be necessary in the circumstances. The order of detention was challenged by the petitioner before the Advisory Board under Section 15(2) of the KAAPA. The Advisory Board rejected the contentions raised by the petitioner. It was contended that the fifth case mentioned in the order under Section 15(1) of the KAAPA was quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. Relying on the decisions in Vijayamma v. State of Kerala, 2014 4 KerLT 563 and Fazludhin v. State of Kerala, 2014 1 KHC 14 (DB)), the Advisory Board held that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the authority under Section 15(1) of the KAAPA would not be affected by the subsequent quashing of the case or the acquittal of the person concerned. It was held that there are sufficient number of cases against the petitioner to hold him as a 'known rowdy' under the KAAPA. The Advisory Board also held that though the last crime was registered against the petitioner on 17.4.2014, "the petitioner was found responsible for the offences" on 21.5.2014, on which date charge sheet was filed, which would establish the "habitual criminal nature" of the petitioner. The Advisory Board also held that the petitioner is "untameable anti- social element who is a threat to the public at large unless he is externed".