IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 59 of 2010(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHINNU, W/O. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 21 YEARS, NIRMITHI HOUSE, ALUMPEEDIKA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.RAVEENDRANATH ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION FOR R1,2,3, &4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(Crl) NO.59/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER DATED 9-9-2009 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FOR ACTION UNDER KAAPA 2007 BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM BEFORE R1. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 9.9.2009 EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.C.NO.1764/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC), KOLLAM. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P(Crl.)No.59 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair J. The writ petitioner is the wife of Sri.Anilkumar alias Kochani who is detained under the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, as per Ext.P3 order of the District Collector, Kollam dated 9.9.2009. Ext.P1 contains the grounds of detention. Ext.P2 is the report submitted by the District Superintendent of Police, Kollam before the District Collector for taking action under the aforementioned Act. The allegation against him is that he is an accused in 12 criminal cases registered within seven years of the detention order. Out of those cases, in ten the investigation is over and final reports were filed. As a result they are pending trial before the competent court. In two crimes registered against him in the year 2009 investigation is not yet over. He is a 'Rowdy' as defined under Section 2(p) and also 'Known Rowdy' as defined under Section 2(p)(iii). The District Superintendent of Police filed a report to that effect. The District Magistrate applied his mind and came to the same conclusion. So the detention order was issued. Challenging the said order, as mentioned earlier, this writ petition was filed. W.P(Crl.)No.59 of 2010 -:2:- 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.3797/2010 producing additional documents to show that he has been acquitted in Sessions Case No.1764/2003 arising from Crime No.562/2002 of Chavara Police Station. 3. We heard learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenu has been acquitted in two more cases and the total cases against him has now come down to nine. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions pointed out that the petitioner has claimed that the detenu has been acquitted in two cases. The judgment now produced by him relates to one of those cases. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions further points out that the acquittal in two or three cases does not make any difference as he will be a 'Known Rowdy', if he is an accused in three cases. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this court may take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the detenu is aged only 28 and that out of the 12 cases, he was acquitted in three cases. 5. We find, in matters of detention, this court is not an appellate forum and therefore, cannot take any lenient view. If the detention order is vitiated for any one of the recognised grounds in law, this W.P(Crl.)No.59 of 2010 -:3:- court could interfere. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions the acquittal in three cases does not make any difference as the detenu continues to be a 'Known Rowdy' even thereafter. The age of the detenu is not a ground vitiating the detention order. In view of the above position we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders impugned. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------- W.P(Crl.)No.59 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 15th March, 2010