IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 210 of 2011(S) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- NISHA NEEL,AGED 29 YEARS, W/O.NEEL STEPHEN,CHERUMUTTATHU HOUSE, T.B.KUNNU BHAGOM, ANGADIKARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.C.R.REKHESH SHARMA SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 682 030. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM(RURAL),ALUVA. 683 101. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI K.J. MOHAMED ANZAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON 29/07/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(CRL).NO.210 OF 2011 S PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION DATED 29.1.2011 ISSUED BY R2. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10.10.2010 OF THE SPONSORING AUTHORITY. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 8.11.2010 OF THE SPONSORING AUTHORITY. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE ORDER OF DETENTION OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.3.2011 IN C.C.NO.531 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KOTHAMANGALAM. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DT. 26.5.2011 SWORN TO BY ONE BINU OF KOTHAMANGALAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(CRL).NO. 210 OF 2011 S ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th July, 2011 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus to release her husband who stands detained vide Ext.P1 order of detention passed under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. We heard Shri K. Ramakumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would address before us the following arguments: The order of detention is bad in law for the reason that there is delay in passing the order of detention. The order of detention was passed on 29.1.2011. He would point out that the District WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 2 Magistrate has referred to six criminal cases during the past seven years under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act). They are as follows: Sessions Case No.293/09 under Sections 307 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. The detenu stood convicted by the Sessions Judge against which Appeal is preferred and the detenu is on bail. The further cases are all under trial cases. They include Crime No.355/07 under Sections 452, 341, 323, 427 & 34 IPC. The detenu stands charge sheeted for the offences as stated. Then, there is reference to NDPS 01/08 under Section 20(b)(ii) A & B of NDPS Act. It is stated to be pending as CC No.106/09 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kothamangalam. It is stated in the order that the detenu/first accused in the case, was arrested for possessing 1020 Grams of ganja. The said crime is alleged to have been committed on 18.1.2008. Then there is reference to Crime No.1727/09 where he is charge sheeted under Sections 323, WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 3 326, 302 & 34 IPC. The said crime was alleged to have been committed on 19.9.2009. Then, there is Crime No.336/10. The date of the crime is 5.5.2010 and he is charge sheeted under Sections 341, 294(b) and 332 IPC. Lastly, there is Crime No.641/10 and the detenu stands charge sheeted under Sections 341 and 294(b) IPC. The date of the alleged crime is 18.08.2010. The District Magistrate has specifically stated that Crime Nos.336/10 and 641/10 are not classified for the purpose of the Act. 4. Learned senior counsel would contend that a perusal of the dates on which the crimes are alleged to have been committed by the detenu would show that excluding Crime Nos.336/10 and 641/10, among other crimes, the last of the crimes was allegedly committed on 19.9.2009. Accordingly, he would submit that the link between the last undesirable activity and the order of detention is very tenuous, so much so, there was no legal basis for the detention. He relied on the following decisions: WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 4 1) Sathi v. State of Kerala and Others (2009 (2) KLD 377). 2) Shruthi v. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KLT 893). 3) Shailaja v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT SN.28 Case No.36). Next, he would point out that this is a case where the sponsoring authority treated the detenu as a known rowdy. But, the District Magistrate has not found him to be a known rowdy. The District Magistrate has excluded Crime Nos.354/07 and 355/07, as they fall within the purview of the proviso (ii) to sub-section (iii) of Clause (p) of Section 2 of the Act and hence could not be considered for classifying the accused as a known rowdy. Thereafter, the District Magistrate has proceeded to treat him as a known goonda, the basis of which is not sound or clear. He would point out that Crime Nos.336/10 and 641/10 have not been taken into account for defining the accused as rowdy as it fails to come under the purview of the conditions laid down for rowdy under Section 2(t) of the Act. Next, the learned senior counsel would contend that this is a case where the District Magistrate has relied upon the alleged WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 5 commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii) A & B of the NDPS Act. According to him, apart from this, there is no other activity ascribed to make the detenu a known goonda. He would lastly contend that this is a case where even the District Magistrate has actually acted illegally in reckoning the case under the NDPS Act to order his detention. This is for the reason that while the definition of the word “goonda” takes in a drug offender and the word “drug offender” is defined in Section 2(i) to embrace within its scope the act of stocking any narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance, the act which is alleged against the detenu is his possession of ganja. He would contend that possession will not amount to stocking. The word “stocking” may involve possession, but every act of possession will not amount to stocking. In this case, he would point out that the allegation against the detenu is that he was in possession and the possession is not alleged to be for the purpose of sale even, yet, in the grounds of detention supplied along with the order of detention, it is complained that without any WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 6 material, the District Magistrate has attempted to make out a case of possession for the purpose of sale. He would point out that if the case under the NDPS Act is excluded as it should be, then, at any rate, there would be no basis at all to treat the alleged detenu as a known goonda. He would also submit that actually the detenu was arrested on 20.2.2011 at about 8/30 AM while he was taking tea in the autorickshaw stand and there is non-compliance with Section 7 of the Act, as the order of detention was served on the detenu while he was illegally kept in the police station on 21.2.2011. 5. Per contra, the learned senior Government Pleader would submit as follows: There is nexus and link between the activities and the order of detention. While it is true that the offence in Crime No.1727/09 was committed allegedly on 19.9.2009 and the order of detention was passed on 29.1.2011, it is pointed out that between 2007 and 2010 he was involved in six criminal cases and the last crime he WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 7 committed was on 18.08.2010 which was committed while detention proceedings were under process. It is also pointed out in the Counter Affidavit that the Superintendent of Police had submitted a Report dated 6.7.2010 against the detenu under Section 3 for initiating detention proceedings against him and the said Report was returned since the District Collector who is authorised to act under Section 3(1) of the Act, had left the State for attending two months' training at Mussorie and as per the direction of the High Court in W.P.(Crl).No.91/09, the Additional District Magistrate who was temporarily in charge of the District Magistrate could not exercise the power conferred on the District Magistrate under the Act. Thereafter, it is stated that a consolidated Report dated 10.10.2010 was received from the Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, some clarifications were sought for, which were cleared by the submission of the records as per the report dated 8.11.2010. Learned senior Government Pleader would also contend that the detenu was involved in two WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 8 further crimes in 2010, the dates of the crimes being 5.5.2010 and 18.8.2010. Therefore, he would submit that this is a clear case where the detention could be said to be warranted. Next, he would contend that it is settled law that the District Magistrate is not bound by the Report of the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate can take the view on the materials supplied that the detenu is a known goonda and not a known rowdy or vice versa. He would submit that the District Magistrate after applying her mind, came to the conclusion that having regard to the provisions of law, Crime Nos.354/07 and 355/07 cannot be reckoned for the purpose of treating him as a known rowdy. Again, Crime Nos.336/10 and 641/10 could also not be taken into consideration for treating the detenu as a rowdy. It is pointed out thereafter that the detenu was reckoned as a known goonda on the basis of his involvement in Crime No.1727/09 involving Sections 323, 326, 302 and 34 of IPC which is an offence under Section 2(t) of the Act along with his involvement in the crime under the NDPS WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 9 Act. He would elaborate and contend that under the definition of the word “known goonda”, having regard to the Explanation, an instance of rowdy can also be reckoned along with the act falling within the definition of the word “known goonda” for treating him as a known goonda and this is all that has happened and no exception could be taken to it. He would further contend that while it is true that the word “stock” is used in Section 2(i) of the Act defining the word “drug offender”, it is pertinent to note that Section 2(i) contemplates stocking among other activities which involve contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act or any other law for the time being in force. He would point out that “stocking” is not an expression which is actually employed in the NDPS Act, in that, “stocking” is not made a contravention. He would point out that possession, however, is referred to in Section 20(2)(b) under which the detenu stands charged and, therefore, the word “stocking” is the same as possession. 6. An order providing for preventive detention involves an WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 10 incursion into the most prized rights of man, namely liberty and, therefore, the Courts must undoubtedly ensure that it is passed in strict compliance with the law that governs the same. Among the guiding principles which form part of the law, is the inevitable and imperative link that should exist between the detenu's activities and the order of detention. In this case, Crime No.1727/09 in which the detenu is allegedly involved in committing the offence under Section 302 also, was committed on 19.9.2009. The order of detention was passed on 29.1.2011, i.e. there is a passage of more than sixteen months. The maximum period of detention under the Act is only six months. Certainly and without anything more, the order of detention would appear to be bad in law, as the detention has lost its relevance having regard to the yawning gap between the last alleged criminal activity of the detenu and the order of detention. 7. However, two circumstances are essentially pressed into service. Firstly, it is the case of the respondents that though the WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 11 Superintendent of Police submitted a report dated 6.7.2010 against the detenu, it was returned since the District Collector who is the authorised Officer had left the State for two months' training. It is contended that this Court has taken the view that the Additional District Magistrate who was temporarily in charge cannot exercise the power under Section 3 of the Act. However, we do not think that, that can be a premise to validate a stale order of detention. 8. An order of detention is passed in a jurisdiction of suspicion and as a preventive measure. It is not punitive. By the time the Report dated 6.7.2010 was submitted, in fact, a period of nearly nine months had already expired from 19.9.2009 which is the date of the crime involved in Crime No.1727/09. The date of crime under the NDPS Act (NDPS.No.1/08) is 18.1.2008. The crime in Crime No.355/07 was allegedly on 24.4.2007. In SC. No.293/09, the incident was alleged to have taken place on 25.4.2007. Therefore, we would think that the petitioner is justified in contending that the action against the detenu was WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 12 inordinately delayed. 9. However, the learned senior Government Pleader sought to draw support from the crimes registered as Crime Nos.336/10 and 641/10. They are said to have been committed on 5.5.2010 and 18.8.2010. They are expressly, however, not classified for the purpose of the Act in the order of detention. The case in Crime No.336/10 appears to be that the detenu obstructed the official duty of the police officer on traffic duty at Kothamangalam town by wrongfully restraining him and abusing him by obscene words in a public place and in front of the public where the complainant challenged the misbehaviour of the detenu in the presence of the police officer, i.e. smoking at a public place in front of the officer on traffic duty. Crime No.641/10 was allegedly committed on 18.8.2010. The case appears to be that the detenu had wrongfully restrained the complainant by catching hold of the neck of the complainant near the Kothamangalam private bus stand due to enmity and abused him in obscene language loudly, capable of WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 13 creating annoyance in the mind of the public. The complainant was an autorickshaw driver and apparently it related to parking. Thus, the case of the respondents is that between 2007 and 2010, the detenu committed six criminal cases. In Ground A of the Writ Petition, it is stated as follows: “There is no nexus between the alleged activities that has admittedly occurred in April 2007 and the order of detention which is made in February, 2011. There is a huge and yawning gap between the activities attributed to the detention and the order of detention. It is settled law by series of decisions of this Hon'ble Court that detention without trail of an Indian citizen can be made only if there is imminent necessity for doing so. In the case on hand, the petitioner's husband Neel Stephen is detained for his involvement in a crime in April, 2007 and further involvement of NDPS offences on 18.1.2008. Between 18.1.2008 and 21.2.2011 not a single incident is even stated in the order of detention or any activities of the detenue after 2008 is relied upon to detain him. The nexus between the order of detention and the activities has, therefore, WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 14 completely got snapped and in the order of detention there were no materials warranting his detention without trial or any activities even pointed out in the order of detention after 18.1.2008 to make the detenue fall within the expression `Known Goonda'. The expression `Known Goonda' is invoked only because of an allegation under the NDPS Act in which admittedly he was let on bail. The provisions of the NDPS Act is very strict regarding bail and only when the Public Prosecutor concedes, the accused charged of offences under that Act can be released on bail. The fact that he has been granted bail is recorded in Exhibit P1. In the first case Crime No.357 the detenue has been convicted and granted bail by the Apex Court. In all the cases relied on, the detenue has been granted bail. It is, therefore, submitted that the inordinate delay in the involvement in a crime and the order of detention is fatal to the sustainability of Exhibit P1 and therefore, for that short ground the order of detention is liable to be declared void, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.” WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 15 In this connection, it is also necessary to refer to the stand of the District Magistrate who is the second respondent, in answer to Ground A in the Writ Petition. It reads as follows: “Ground A of the writ petition is incorrect and devoid of merits. It is submitted that there is a proper application of mind by this authority in issuing the detention order. The contention that not a single activity of the detenue after 2008 is relied upon to detain him is absolutely wrong as the involvement of the detenue in Cr.No.1727/09 charge sheeted u/s.323,326,302 & 34 IPC which was under trial is considered and is mentioned in the detention order and the date of crime is 19.09.2009. Hence the allegation that the nexus between the order of detention and the activities considered for detention has got completely snapped, is void and misleading. It is also averted that the expression of `known goonda' was invoked only because of the allegation under the NDPS Act. It is not true as in the detention order the involvement of detenue in Cr. No.1727/09 is also indicated along with the NDPS Act as the reason for defining the detenue as a known goonda as defined WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 16 under sub-section (ii) clause (o) of Section 2 of Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.” 10. Going by the answer to Ground A by the detaining authority, the answer to the Ground based on delay is that the last crime was committed on 19.9.2009. No doubt, the case set up in Ground 9 would appear to be that there is no nexus between the activities occurred in April 2007 and February, 2011. There is further reference to the crime on 18.1.2008 (the case under the NDPS Act). But, even if the crime dated 19.9.2009 is taken as the basis for providing the link for the criminal activity and the detention, there is a gap of more than fifteen months. Going by the Counter Affidavit as aforesaid of the detaining authority, support is not sought with regard to Crime Nos.336/10 and 641/10. There is another aspect of the matter. It is apparent from the order itself that the authority has not proceeded to rely on those crimes in the sense that it would not fall within the purview of the Act. Also, for the purpose of arriving at the subjective satisfaction, it has been WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 17 held by this Court that the activity must relate to public order, and not law and order. A Bench of this Court in Shruthi v. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KLT 893) held as follows: “19. We are certainly of the opinion that while considering the entertainment of the latter subjective satisfaction, every detaining authority is bound to consider whether the acts complained of against the detenu do really pose a threat to maintenance of public order. When the acts alleged are such that they threaten only the law and order and not public order, they cannot be reckoned as sufficient to justify an order of preventive detention.” 11. There is substantial delay even in initiating action against the detenu, even if the offence in Crime No.1727/09 allegedly committed on 19.9.2009 is reckoned. It was clearly after about nine months from 19.9.2009 that even the action was initiated. No doubt, there is reference to Crime No.336/10 allegedly committed on 5.5.2010. The second respondent in the Counter Affidavit says WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 18 that the Superintendent of Police submitted a Report dated 6.7.2010 under Section 3 of the Act. It was returned since the Collector was attending two months training at Mussorie. Thereafter, on 18.8.2010 Crime No.641/2010 was allegedly committed. We notice that the final report in the said case was also submitted on 28.8.2010. A consolidated report was given by the Superintendent of Police on 10.10.2010. Some clarifications were sought and which were clarified as per report dated 8.11.2010. No doubt, in Ext.P1 order of detention, there is reference to another communication dated 11.1.2011. In fact, there is no reference to the Report dated 10.10.2010 in Ext.P1 as such. Thereafter, it is after more than 2 ½ months that the order dated 29.1.2011 was passed. We would think that in the circumstances of this case, the link would appear to have been snapped undoubtedly with reference to the crime committed allegedly on 19.9.2009. We would think that in respect of the other two crimes also, the authority has apparently proceeded to hold that they are WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 19 insufficient to treat the detenu as either a known goonda or known rowdy. But, apparently, it is sought to be brought as an anti-social activity. No doubt, the subjective satisfaction is not treated as justiciable. The Apex Court in the decision in Angoori Devi v. Union of India ((1989) 1 SCC 385), inter alia, held as follows: “The impact on “public order” and “law and order” depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and motive force behind it. If the act is confined to an individual without directly or indirectly affecting the tempo of the life of the community, it may be a matter of law and order only. But, where the gravity of the act is otherwise and likely to endanger the public tranquility, it may fall within the orbit of the public order. This is precisely the distinguishing feature between the two concepts. Sometimes, as observed by Venkatachaliah, J. in Ayya alias Ayub v. State of U.P: “What might be an otherwise simple `law and order' situation might assume the gravity and mischief of a `public order' problem by reason alone of the manner or WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 20 circumstances in which or the place at which it is carried out.” Necessarily, much depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and the sinister significance attached to it.......As for example dare-devil repeated criminal acts, open shoot out, throwing bomb at public places, committing serious offences in public transport, armed persons going on plundering public properties or terrorising people may create a sense of insecurity in the public mind and may have an impact on “public order”. Even certain murder committed by persons in lonely places with the definite object of promoting the cause of the party to which they belong may also affect the maintenance of `public order'”. The above decision has been referred by a Bench of this Court in Shruthi v. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KLT 893). It may be true that Crime No.641/10 may not disclose a matter which is strictly related to public order. But then, the subjective satisfaction is generally not justiciable. We cannot ignore, however, that the order of detention is passed more than eight months from the date of the WP(CRl). 210/2011 S 21 offence in Crime No.336/10. Even from the date of filing of the charge sheet in Crime No.641/10, namely 28.8.2010, there is a gap of five months. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order of detention is quashed and we direct that the detenu, namely