RADHA THANKAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the expression 'report' in the proviso to Section 2(o) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as KAAPA) to take its meaning from the 'police report' defined under Sec. 2(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Is insistence on such importation of the definition under the Code to the KAAPA justified These questions are raised for determination in this writ petition. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Subhash who has been ordered to be preventively detained under Section 3 of the KAAPA by the 2nd respondent. She prays that a writ of habeas corpus may be issued to produce her son, who was detained under Section 3 of the KAAPA and release him.

(2.) A brief reference to the sequence of events will be crucially relevant. The detenu was allegedly involved in five crimes, all relating to alleged attempts at depredation of nature by the petitioner. Five such crimes were registered. The offences alleged in those five crimes were allegedly committed oh the following dates:

(3.) The first four cases were investigated and complaints were filed before the Magistrate by the police. The 5th case was being investigated into. At that stage, it is now revealed that, on 18/12/2008, a report was submitted by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent recommending that the detenu may be ordered to be detained under the KAAPA. That report was received by the 2nd respondent; but order of detention was not passed. The 2nd respondent sent the report back to the 3rd respondent pointing out that readable copies of the documents have to be furnished by the sponsoring authority along with the recommendation. It was also pointed out that it has not been stated specifically whether the conditions of bail have been violated by the detenu. Accordingly, the detaining authority returned the said report dated 31/12/2008 to the sponsoring authority.