IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P. JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 WP(Crl.).No. 439 of 2008(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- SHEEJA KUMARI, T.C.48/577(2) GREEN GARDEN, PARAVANKUNNU P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED SRI.K.S.SUMESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME AND VIGILANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADDL.D.G.P SRI. K.K. RAVINDRANATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION NO.SI3-92574/08 DTD 28.9.08 OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE GROUNDS FOR DETENTION. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 30.10.08 SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE DETENU. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED FROM THE HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, ALL KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CONSELOR OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2A COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE D ETENU. EXT.R2B COPY OF GROUNDS FOR DETENTION ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE DETENU /TRUE COPY/ cl A.K.BASHEER & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(Crl)No.439 OF 2008-S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Basheer, J: Petitioner's husband Sri. Sajeesh Kumar, S/o. Manikantan Nair is undergoing detention in terms of Ext.P1 order issued by respondent No.2, the District Collector and District Magistrate,Trivandrum, under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. 2. Petitioner contends that Ext.P1 order is ex facie illegal and unsustainable. Therefore, she prays for a writ of habeas corpus to respondent No.3 to set her husband at liberty. 3. In Ext.P1, respondent No.2, the authorised officer, has referred to five crimes registered against the petitioner for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, Explosive Substances Act etc. between 2003 and 2008. Crime No.362/2003 was registered by Fort Police, Trivandrum for offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,149,452 and 506(ii) I.P.C read with Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The charge appears to be that the detenu along with the other accused had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and country bombs, and trespassed into the house of the complainant and committed the above offences. The case is now reportedly 2 WP(Crl.)No.439/08 committed to the Fast Track Court. 4. Crime No.123/2004 was registered by Thiruvallam police. In this case, offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act is also seen incorporated apart from offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The above case is pending trial in C.C.No.436/2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class No.II, Neyyattinkara. 5. In Crime No.111/2006 registered by Thiruvallam police, the offences alleged against the detenu and the co- accused are punishable under Sections 143,147,148,149,363,323 and 308 I.P.C. The case stands committed to Sessions Court for trial. In Crime No.279/1007, offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act apart from the offences punishable under Sections 452, 427 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 I.P.C are also incorporated. The above case is pending trial in C.C.No.505/2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thiruvananthapuram. 6. Crime No.193/2008 has been registered by the Fort police for the offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C. The allegation against the detenu is that he had taken away Rs.100/= from the complainant's pocket after beating him on his chest. The above case is reportedly pending in C.C.No.219/2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class No-II, Trivandrum. 7. The authorised officer had issued Ext.P1 order pursuant to the report received by him from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Trivandrum. It is on record that the authorised officer had furnished the grounds of detention to 3 WP(Crl.)No.439/08 the detenu, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P2. It contains the details of the crimes referred to above. 8. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P1 order suffers from the vice of serious illegality and is vitiated for reasons more than one. According to the learned counsel, the crimes referred to in Exts.P1 and P2 have no nexus to the immediate cause or reason to order detention of the detenu. The next contention raised by the learned counsel is that the detenu had not been furnished with copy of the proceedings reportedly initiated against him under Section 110(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The other contention raised by the learned counsel is that the representation submitted by the detenu was not forwarded by the Government to the Advisory Board as postulated under the Act. 9. As regards the first contention raised by the petitioner, it has to be noticed that the five crimes referred to in Exts.P1 and P2 are seen to have been registered by the police between 2003 and 2008. The nature of the offences alleged in those crimes clearly indicates that there is a common or uniform pattern in those crimes. In all these crimes except the third and the last, offences under the Explosive Substances Act and the Arms Act are also involved. Similarly in all but one, the detenu had allegedly perpetrated the crime in company with his accomplices. 10. We have carefully perused the charge/allegation in the above crimes. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel that the above crimes are not of such a nature as to 4 WP(Crl.)No.439/08 warrant detention of the detenu under the Act. It has to be remembered that the authorised officer has to arrive at a subjective satisfaction after considering the report of the sponsoring authority and also on the basis of the inputs furnished by such authority. If the sponsoring authority and the detaining authority after considering the materials available before them form an opinion that preventive detention is warranted in order to maintain peace and harmony in a particular area, this Court need not and cannot venture into the task of assessing the wisdom of the said decision in exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the authorised officer in ordering detention of the detenu under Section 3(2) of the Act. Similarly the contention that there is no nexus between the registration of the crimes and the order of detention cannot also be sustained since it is revealed that the last crime was registered in the year 2008 and the two other crimes were registered in the year 2006 and 2007. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel is rejected. 11. The next contention raised by the learned counsel is that non-furnishing of the copy of the proceedings under Section 110(e) of the Code has prejudicially affected the right of the detenu in making an effective representation before the competent authority. Yet again we are unable to agree with the learned counsel on this score also. It is true that in Ext.P2 a reference is seen to have been made to the 5 WP(Crl.)No.439/08 proceedings initiated against the detenu under Sections 110 (e) and (f) of the Code by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in 2004. But, a perusal of Ext.P2 will show that the authorised officer had issued the impugned order based on the above proceedings initiated under the Code. Evidently the authorised officer had arrived at the subjective decision to order detention of the detenu on the basis of the five crimes registered against the detenu. Therefore, in our view mere reference made by the authorised officer to the proceedings under Sections 110(e) and (f) of the Code will not ipso facto show that the authorised officer was influenced by the above proceedings initiated against the detenu in the year 2004. 12. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to a decision of the apex Court in J. Abdul Hakeem v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2005 SC 3677). But, we are afraid that the above decision will not come to the aid of the petitioner at all since in the said decision their Lordships had categorically held that non supply of document which will not affect validity of the order if in fact the said document had not been relied on by the detaining authority. Their Lordships held that crux of the matter lies on the question whether the detenu's right to make a representation against the order of detention, is hampered by non-supply of the particular document. 13. Having carefully perused Exts.P1 and P2, we have no hesitation to hold that non-supply of a copy of the proceedings initiated against the detenu under Sections 110(e)and (f) of the Code will not in any way prejudicially affect the right of the 6 WP(Crl.)No.439/08 detenu to make an effective representation before the competent authority. 14. The other decision relied on by the learned counsel in this connection is District Collector, Ananthapur v. V. Laxmanna (AIR 2005 SC 2802). The detenu in the above case was ordered to be detained under the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act (1 of 1986). The detaining authority had ordered detention under the Act since the detenu was allegedly involved in the manufacture, transport and sale of arrack. The authority took the view that such an acitivity was dangerous to public health and prejudicial to maintenance of public order. But, the above order of detention was set aside by the High Court on the ground that copy of the basic document showing that activity of the detenu was dangerous to public health was not furnished to the detenu. The apex Court while concurring with the view taken by the High Court held that “if the detaining authority is satisfied that such material exists either in the form of report of the Chemical Examiner or otherwise, copy of such material should also be given to the detenu to afford him an opportunity to make an effective representation”. 15. As mentioned by us earlier, the mere fact that the detaining authority has made a passing reference to the proceedings initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 110(e)and (f) of the Code will not necessarily obligate the detaining authority to furnish a copy of the said proceedings to the detenu especially since the order of 7 WP(Crl.)No.439/08 detention does not show that the said proceeding had any bearing in the decision making process. In our view failure to give copy of the proceedings will not prejudicially affect the right of the detenu to make an effective representation in the facts and circumstances of this case. 16. The last contention raised by the learned counsel is that his representation against the order of detention was not forwarded by the Government to the Advisory Board. But, learned Additional Director General of Prosecution invites our attention to the opinion given by the Advisory Board to the Government. It is seen from the order passed by the Advisory Board that the detenu was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. There is a specific reference to the representation submitted by the detenu also. The Advisory Board had furnished its opinion to the Government after considering the submissions made by the detenu in person and also after perusing the representation submitted by the detenu. 17. Having carefully perused the entire materials available on record, we are satisfied that Ext.P1 order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. There is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) cl 8 WP(Crl.)No.439/08 9 WP(Crl.)No.439/08 cl 10 WP(Crl.)No.439/08 11 WP(Crl.)No.439/08 12 WP(Crl.)No.439/08