IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 428 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- REMYA K.P.,W/O.JITHESH @ TITTU, AGED 23 YEARS, PATTARKANDY HOUSE, ALAVIL POST, PALLIKKUNNU AMSOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P.RAVINDRA BABU ADGP SHRI K.K.RAVINDRANATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.)No.428 OF 2009 S ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. The petitioner, the wife of a detenu detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the `KAAPA') has come to this Court for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to direct production of her husband P.Jithesh @ Tittu (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu) and to set him at liberty. He stands detained by an order dated 7.9.2009 under Section 3 of the KAAPA passed by the second respondent-District Magistrate. The same was executed on 16.10.2009. The detenu continues in custody from that date. The order of approval under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA has already been passed , it is submitted and conceded. 2. The detenu is classified as a 'known rowdy'. There are as many as five cases registered against him. Those are given in detail in Exhibit P1 order. First of those five cases W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -2- admittedly cannot be and was not reckoned to decide whether the alleged detenu is a 'known rowdy' or not. In three of the remaining four cases, final reports have already been filed alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 307 IPC, 307 IPC and 308 IPC. In respect of the 5th case, crime was registered alleging offences punishable under sections 294(b) and 506(i) read with Section 34 of IPC. Investigation into that case is not complete. 3. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader have advanced their arguments. There is no dispute on the question that the detenu can validly be classified as a 'known rowdy' on the strength of the three cases, i.e., cases (ii), (iii) and (iv) referred to in Exhibit P1. Even if the first and the fifth cases are eschewed, the fact remains that the detenu falls within the sweep of the expression 'known rowdy' in Section 2(p) of the KAAPA. The contention is strenuously raised by the W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -3- learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of detention and the consequent detention are bad in law. It is contended that the latter subjective satisfaction under Section 3 of the KAAPA has not been validly and satisfactorily entertained for the following reasons. (1) The sponsoring authority in the report under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA dated 4.7.2009 furnished totally incorrect information to the detaining authority about the alleged abscondence of the detenu which was blindly accepted by the detaining authority and this led the detaining authority to incorrectly entertain the latter subjective satisfaction under Section 3 of the KAAPA. (2) The detaining authority has not properly applied his mind to the relevant facts. The report of the sponsoring authority was blindly W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -4- accepted, without application of mind by the detaining authority. (3) The detaining authority erred grossly in relying on the alleged confidential report to conclude that the detenu is a hard core criminal and his activities cause serious threat to peace and tranquility of the local residents. (4) The detaining authority did not take into account the fact that there was snapping of nexus and the 5th case registered under Section 294(b) and 506(i) read with Section 34 IPC (all offences bailable) should not have been taken into reckoning to entertain the latter subjective satisfaction. 4. For the sake of convenience, we shall deal with all these grounds together. Though, shown as different W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -5- grounds, the crux of the contention is that the detaining authority did not properly applied his mind to the relevant facts before concluding that the latter subjective satisfaction can be entertained. 5. The scheme of KAAPA has to be borne in mind. First of all the detaining authority has to entertain the requisite initial objective satisfaction that the detenu is a 'known rowdy' or a 'known goonda'. That is only the threshold satisfaction. After entertaining that initial objective satisfaction, the authority must proceed to anxiously consider whether the latter subjective satisfaction can be entertained or not. After consideration of the relevant materials available, the detaining authority must entertain the latter subjective satisfaction that “with a view to prevent the detenu from committing any anti-social activity within the State of Kerala in any manner” it is necessary to detain such person. The learned counsel for W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -6- the petitioner has trained all his guns against the alleged entertainment of the latter subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority. 6. It must first of all be noted that cases (ii), (iii) and (iv) referred to in Exhibit P1 relate to very serious allegations of the detenu having committed offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 307, 307 and 308 of IPC. Those offences allegedly took place on 16.7.2003, 16.7.2003 and 5.9.2006. The sponsoring authority submitted his report dated 4.7.2009 and the impugned order of detention was passed on 7.9.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner first of all argues that cases (ii), (iii) and (iv) should not have been reckoned as relevant to entertain the latter subjective satisfaction as there is snapping of nexus between the alleged conduct and the order of detention. Those incidents took place on 16.7.2003, and 5.9.2006 - more than three years and six W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -7- years prior to the date of the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the gap of time is so long that it is sufficient to transform a sinner into a saint and a saint into a sinner. Cases(ii),(iii) and (iv) were mechanically taken into consideration by the detaining authority without pointed application of mind as to whether those incidents are sufficient to justify future preventive detention. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that case No.(v) relied on by the detaining authority relates to allegations under Section 294(b) and 506(i) read with Section 34 of IPC - Crime No.328/09. That relates to an incident which allegedly took place on 10.6.2009. The allegation in that crime is that on 8.6.2009, the detenu along with another went to the hotel of the defacto complainant in Crime No.328/2009 and demanded free chilly chicken. The defacto complainant did not oblige. W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -8- On account of this animosity, on 10.6.2009, the detenu and another went to the hotel of the defacto complainant and allegedly showered indecent abuses and indulged in intimidation of the lesser variety punishable under Section 506(i) of IPC. A complaint about this incident was made interestingly only on 12.6.2009. In short, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sponsoring authority realising that cases (ii),(iii) and (iv) referred to in Exhibit P1 will be insufficient to attract the provisions under the KAAPA against the detenu had raised false allegations in case No.(v) as indicated above to justify the invocation of the KAAPA immediately prior to the bye-election which was to take place in the Cannanore Constituency. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in case No.(v), investigation is not complete. All offences alleged are only bailable offences. The nature of the allegations raised in case No.(v) is not ones that can or should attract action W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -9- under the KAAPA. Ordinary laws can sufficiently deal with such an allegation and the invocation of the KAAPA without proper application of mind is not justified, contends the learned counsel. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that the sponsoring authority did not place before the detaining authority the fact that the detenu is on bail in cases (ii) and (iii) . It is not now disputed that on the date of the impugned order and on the date on which the sponsoring authority submitted his report, the detenu was on bail in cases (ii) and (iii) referred above. Incorrect information has been furnished by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority that the detenu is absconding in cases (ii) and (iii), contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. This factually incorrect impression has also persuaded the detaining authority to come to the conclusion that the detention of the detenu under the KAAPA is W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -10- necessary. This is wholly unjustified, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. The sponsoring authority did not report the correct facts. The detaining authority did not verify and ascertain the correct facts. In these circumstances, the entertainment of the latter subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority on such material is vitiated, argues the learned counsel. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that the detaining authority had placed implicit reliance on confidential reports which were allegedly received by the detaining authority. He relies on the following passage in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, which we extract below: “9. ........ ........ ..... Confidential report reveals that he is a hard core criminal and his activities causes serious threat to the peace and tranquility of the people W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -11- residing in the Kannur area.” The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the confidential report on which reliance has been placed by the detaining authority has not been furnished to the detenu. There is no dispute that such confidential report has not been furnished to the detenu. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the non-furnishing of the confidential report on which significant reliance is placed by the detaining authority vitiates the order of detention. The detaining authority erred in placing reliance on materials of which copies were not furnished to the detenu. Reliance placed on such confidential report is incorrect. Non- furnishing of copy of the confidential report amounts to crucial and fatal infraction of the provisions of Section 7(2) of the KAAPA, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. Either way, the impugned order and the detention is vitiated, argues the learned counsel. W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -12- 10. The learned Government Pleader on the contrary contends that the detaining authority had correctly applied his mind to all relevant aspects and has not committed any serious error or inadequacy in proceeding to pass the impugned order of detention. The former objective initial threshold satisfaction has been validly entertained and there is no serious dispute on that aspect, points out the learned Government Pleader. The only question is whether the latter subjective satisfaction has been entertained properly. 11. The learned Government Pleader submits that reliance was placed on cases (ii),(iii),(iv) and (v) referred to in Exhibit P1 to entertain the latter subjective satisfaction. In cases (ii) and (iii), the detenu was not on bail at the time when the final report was filed. The sponsoring authority had only reported that at the time when the final report was filed, the detenu was absconding. It was not reported that the detenu was absconding in those two crimes on the date W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -13- on which the sponsoring authority submitted his report. The detaining authority did not assume that the alleged detenu was absconding in those two cases on the date when the impugned order was passed on 7.9.2009. 12. The learned Government Pleader then contends that while it is true that cases (ii),(iii) and (iv) referred to in Exhibit P1 order may by themselves have not been sufficient to order detention, on the theory of snapping of nexus, the 5th case, the incident in which took place on 10.6.2009 is sufficient to establish the nexus between the alleged acts and the order of future detention. The learned Government Pleader points out that the law of preventive detention is the jurisprudence of suspicion. On the basis of the past acts, the detaining authority is called upon to predicate the future behaviour of the detenu and it is with such inputs that he has to take a decision on the need for future detention. Cases (ii),(iii) and (iv) are, inter alia, under Sections 307, W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -14- 307 and 308 IPC. They are serious enough for the detaining authority to entertain genuine suspicions about the future conduct of the detenu. The last of such cases, i.e., case No. (v) referred to in Exhibit P1 shows that the detenu was continuing such activities. In these circumstances, the subjective satisfaction entertained cannot be faulted for the reason that the sponsoring authority and the detaining authority referred to the fact that the detenu was absconding on the date when the final reports were filed in cases (ii) and (iii) or on account of the fact that the incidents in cases (ii),(iii) and (iv) took place on 16.7.2003, 16.7.2003 and 5.9.2006. 13. The learned Government Pleader submits that it is true that in respect of the 5th case referred to in Exhibit P1 the alleged incident had taken place on 10.6.2009 and the incident which operated as motive for that incident took place on 8.6.2009. The FIR was lodged only on 12.6.2009 W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -15- and the case was still under investigation when the detenu was sponsored for detention and the impugned order of detention Exhibit P1 was passed on 7.9.2009. But, all these cannot vitiate the subjective satisfaction entertained by the detaining authority on the basis of the four cases (i.e., cases (ii) to (v)) referred to in Exhibit P1. In these circumstances, the learned Government Pleader contends that there is neither snapping of nexus nor want of application of mind properly by the detaining authority. 14. The learned Government Pleader finally contends that the non-supplying of copies of the confidential report cannot be reckoned as crucial. There is reference to the confidential report in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, which we have already extracted above. The learned Government Pleader submits that even without the said confidential report, there was sufficient material to entertain the latter subjective satisfaction. In these circumstances, W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -16- the learned Government Pleader submits that Section 7(4) of the KAAPA must come to the rescue of the respondents and even excluding the said confidential report, the latter subjective satisfaction entertained by the detaining authority cannot be faulted. 15. We have considered these contentions in the light of all the relevant inputs. We take note of the fact that subjective satisfaction has to be entertained on the basis of the materials placed before the detaining authority. That subjective satisfaction is not justiciable. However, if there is no proper application of mind by the detaining authority, such an order of detention does certainly call for interference in judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, first of all we note that in respect of cases (ii) and (iii), the detenu was actually on bail. But, the sponsoring authority reported to the detaining authority that the detenu was absconding. The W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -17- argument that the absconding related to the period immediately prior to the filing of the charge sheet does not carry conviction as the sponsoring authority has not reported and the detaining authority has not considered the fact that the detenu was actually on bail in cases (ii) and (iii) when the sponsoring was made and the impugned order was passed. Though at the time of filing the charge sheet he was absconding and that fact is stated in the impugned order, it is not stated either in the impugned order or in the report of the sponsor that he was released on bail subsequently. The impression appears to be irresistible by a reading of Exhibit P1 that the detaining authority was under the incorrect impression that the detenu was absconding in cases (ii) and (iii) even on the date on which the order of detention was passed. That is an incorrect premise. Want of clarification by the sponsoring authority in the report dated 4.7.2009 and the want of verification of W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -18- facts by the detaining authority had led the detaining authority to entertain such an obvious incorrect impression. The subjective satisfaction must be held to be vitiated to that extent. 16. On the question of snapping of nexus also we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. All the three cases, i.e., cases (ii), (iii) and (iv) referred to in Exhibit P1 are at points of time far removed in history - 16.7.2003, 16.7.2003 and 5.9.2006. More than a period of six years, six years and three years respectively had elapsed from the dates of those offences when the impugned order was passed on 7.9.2009. In the last of those cases, final report has not been filed. Even though, it is stated that the investigating authorities have satisfied about the commission of the offence, no materials have been produced to satisfy the Court that the Investigator had entertained such satisfaction. Be that as it may, we further W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -19- note that case No.(v) referred to in Exhibit P1 refers only to a bailable offence. It was incumbent on the detaining authority to consider the fact that the alleged incident had taken place on 10.6.2009, the motive thereof was an incident two days earlier and the FIR was registered two days later to the incident. Pointed application to this aspect is not seen made by the detaining authority. In this context, it must be seen that Section 2(p)(iii) speaks of a person being “found, on investigation or enquiry by a competent police officer .......... ................ ............ to have committed any offence mentioned in clause (t) of Section 2”. He has to entertain the requisite satisfaction. Normally such satisfaction can be said to be entertained when the final report is filed. Of course in Elizabeth George v. State of Kerala (2008(4)KLT 425), it is held that filing of the final report need not be invariably insisted. We have doubted the correctness of this proposition of law W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -20- in Sathi v. State of Kerala (2009(2) KLD 377) and Ranjini v. State of Kerala (2009(3) KHC 431) and have already referred the question to the Full Bench for its decision vide our order in W.P.(C.)No.20606 of 2009 dated 9.9.2009. Moreover Section 2(p)(iii) relates only to the entertainment of the initial objective threshold satisfaction. When it comes to the latter subjective satisfaction, the mind of the detaining authority has to be clearly applied. In a case where the final report has not been filed at all the detaining authority will have to closely consider whether the allegations raised ought to be taken into reckoning to entertain the latter subjective satisfaction. We find that in the impugned order, the detaining authority has not subjected the allegations in case No.(v) in Exhibit P1 to such close scrutiny. Mind has not been applied closely on that aspect. Impugned order does not at any rate indicate such application of mind. W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -21- 17. Coming to the objection raised about the detaining authority adverting to confidential report which is not revealed to the Court or to the detenu, it will be apposite to advert to the decision of a three Judges Bench of this Court in P.K.Bose v. The Secretary to Government and others, i.e., judgment dated 30th September, 2009 in W.P. (Crl.)No.260/2009. That was also a case where the detaining authority relied on such confidential report and the Full Bench took the view that reliance placed on such undisclosed confidential report without any justification under the proviso to Section 7(2) of the KAAPA to suppress and not reveal such report from the detenu vitiates the order of detention. The said confidential report referred to in Exhibit P1 is not revealed to the Court even now. But reliance is seen placed on such report. Copy of that report is not furnished to the detenu under Section 7(2) of the KAAPA. There is no whisper of a contention that the said W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -22- confidential report is entitled to protection from disclosure under the proviso to Section 7(2) of the KAAPA. In this view of the matter, it has got to be held that reliance placed on such undisclosed report vitiates the subjective satisfaction entertained by the detaining authority. The non-furnishing of such report as ordained by Section 7(2) of the KAAPA without any attempt to rely on the proviso to Section 7(2) leads to the irresistible conclusion that the right/obligation under Section 7(2) of the KAAPA is also infringed. For that reason alone the impugned order warrants interference. 18. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the latter subjective satisfaction under Section 3 of the KAAPA has not been validly entertained and the order of detention and the consequent detention deserve to be invalidated for such reason. 19. In the result: (a) this Writ Petition is allowed. W.P.(Crl.)No.428/09 -23- (b) the impugned order of detention and the consequent detention of the detenu, P.Jithesh @ Tittu is set aside. (c) If the detention of the detenu is not required in connection with any other case, he shall forthwith be released from custody by the prison authorities. (d) The Registry shall forthwith communicate this direction to the authorities of Central Prison, Kannur, where the detenu is held in detention. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn