AMMINI.S. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vinod, son of the petitioner, was detained under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti -Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA') as per Exhibit P2 order dated 15.7.2015. The detenu was arrested on 18.7.2015. The order of detention was confirmed on 19.9.2015. The detenu is undergoing detention.

(2.) The detenu is classified as 'known rowdy' under Section 2(p) of the KAAPA. The detenu is involved in five crimes. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first 4 crimes were registered in the years 2008 and 2009 and the last crime was registered in respect of an occurrence which took place on 7.2.2015. It is submitted that only because of the allegation that the detenu is involved in a crime registered in the year 2015, he has been detained under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA.

(3.) The acts done by the person concerned within the previous seven years as calculated from the date of the order imposing any restriction or detention becomes relevant to classify the said person as a 'known rowdy' under the KAAPA. All the five crimes registered against the petitioner come within the period of seven years as provided in Section 2(p) of the Act. Only on the ground that no crimes were registered against the detenu for a considerable length of time is not a ground to hold that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated. The nature of the crimes in which the detenu is involved is also relevant in the matter of arriving at the subjective satisfaction. It is not necessary that after the last crime registered in the year 2009, the person concerned should indulge in sufficient number of crimes to attract any of the sub - clauses under clause (p) of Section 2. The cumulative effect of the nature of the crimes in which the detenu is involved during the previous seven years and the activities of the detenu in recent times would give the necessary factual foundation for the detaining authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. The High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot substitute its reasoning to that arrived at by the detaining authority in the matter of arriving at the subjective satisfaction. No other grounds have been raised by the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of detention or the continued detention of the detenu. The Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.