RAJESH. R. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ratheesh @ Chammanthi Ratheesh, the brother of the petitioner, was detained in execution of Ext.P1 order of detention dated 18.1.2016 issued by the District Magistrate, Palakkad. The order of detention was executed and the detenu was arrested on 20.1.2016. The petitioner is classified as a "known rowdy". In the order of detention, four cases against the detenu were considered, out of which in two cases he was convicted and the other two cases are pending investigation. The order of detention as well as the continued detention of the detenu are under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sponsoring authority submitted a report dated 21.11.2015 to the detaining authority. Subsequently, on the query made by the detaining authority, the sponsoring authority submitted Ext.P3 report dated 3.12.2015, Ext.P4 report dated 30.12.2015, Ext.P5 report dated 8.1.2016 and Ext.P6 report dated 17.1.2016. The main report dated 21.11.2015 was not mentioned in Ext.P1. There is no discussion with respect to the report dated 21.11.2015 in the order of detention. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in respect of Crime No.352 of 2009 of Valayar Police Station, the detenu was found guilty for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a total period of one year and four months in C.C.No.453 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - I, Palakkad. The learned counsel submitted that in appeal by the detenu as Crl.A.No.144 of 2013, on the file of the Court of Session, Palakkad, the appellate court allowed the appeal in part and the conviction was confined to the offences under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the sentence of the appellant was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ -. On a perusal of Ext.P3 report dated 3.12.2015 submitted by the sponsoring authority (District Police Chief, Palakkad), it is seen that there is no mention of the acquittal of the detenu for the main offence as per Ext.P7 judgment. On the other hand, Ext.P3 report shows that the detenu was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a total period of one year and four months.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Ext.P1 order of detention refers to the reports dated 3.12.2015, 30.12.2015, 8.1.2016 and 17.1.2016. It was due to an omission on the part of the detaining authority that mention about the main report dated 21.11.2015 was not made. It is submitted that Ext.P1 order of detention clearly mentions about the crimes committed by the detenu, the details thereof as well as the reasons for detention. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is clear from Ext.P1 itself. He also submitted that copy of the report dated 21.11.2015 was served on the detenu and he had acknowledged the receipt of the same and, therefore, even if that report is not referred to in Ext.P1, the order of detention would not be vitiated. With reference to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P7 judgment and the acquittal thereof were not considered by the detaining authority, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the judgment of the appellate court was not placed before the sponsoring authority as well as the detaining authority.