IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 452 of 2009 -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- N.VISWANATHAN, S/O. LATE NARAYANAN, AGED 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NARAYANA VILASAM, IRAMALLOOR.P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.SMITHA GEORGE SRI.MANU TOM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL ALUVA. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTHAMANGALAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P. RAVINDRA BABU FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(CRL)NO. 452 OF 2009 ============================ DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. This petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus is filed by the petitioner whose son Jayachandran alias Jayan has been detained under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti Social Activities(Prevention)Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA') by an order passed by the first respondent. Ext.P1 is the said order of detention dated 8-5-2009. In execution of Ext.P1, the detenu was taken into custody only on 1-11-2009. The order of approval under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA has already been passed. Order under Section 10(4) of the KAAPA is awaited. It is at this juncture that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to direct the production of the WPCRL.452/2009 -2- detenu and to direct his release from custody. 2. The detenu has been classified as a known goonda. It is alleged that there are as many as six cases registered against him. We give below the details of the six cases that have been referred to in the report submitted by the sponsoring authority dated 23-4-2009 (Ext.P3) and the impugned order of detention dated 8-5-2009 (Ext.P1). Sl.No. Case No. Date of offence Offences alleged Stage of the proceedings 1 52/2007 15/1/07 308 IPC Final report filed 2 20/06 11/01/06 Sand Act Final report filed 3 182/06 19/3/06 Sand Act Final report filed 4 746/06 18/11/06 Sand Act Final report filed 5 742/06 03/08/07 Sand Act Final report filed 6 581/09 07/03/09 452&323 IPC Final report not filed 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Even though various contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we think it to be sufficient and necessary to refer to the following contentions only, that is , WPCRL.452/2009 -3- A. The sponsoring authority and the detaining authority ought to have taken note of the fact that there is no live link between the alleged contumacious acts and the order of detention. B. Crime No.6 must have been excluded from consideration altogether as no finding had even allegedly been reached by the investigating police official on the date of the order of detention. 4. There is dispute as to whether the detenu has been detained as a depredator of environment or as a rowdy involving himself in anti social activities. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that inasmuch as the detenu is alleged to be a depredator of environment cases (1) and (6) above are of no relevance at all. If he is reckoned as a depredator of environment, cases 2 to 5 alone have relevance and significance, argues the counsel. On the contrary, if he is reckoned as a rowdy under Section 2(t) of the KAAPA and consequently a goonda WPCRL.452/2009 -4- under Section 2(j) of the KAAPA, only cases 1 and 6 would be relevant, it is argued. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision in Shiny A. v. State of Kerala, 2009(4)KHC 645 contends that by calling /naming a rowdy answering the definition in Section 2(t) of the KAAPA as a goonda under the latter inclusive part of the definition of goonda in Section 2(j), prejudice cannot be caused to the detenu. 5. The question raised is interesting . But according to us, for the purpose of this case it is not necessary to go into that question in greater detail. We shall reserve the consideration of that contention for an appropriate case later in future. 6. We shall consider the challenge made on grounds A & B together. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in this case this Court need only consider the fact that there is snapping of the nexus (i.e. the proximate and live link) between the alleged contumacious acts and WPCRL.452/2009 -5- the order of detention. Whether the detenu is reckoned as a depredator of environment under Section 2(g) and consequently a goonda under Section 2(j) or whether he is reckoned as a rowdy under Section 2(t) and hence a goonda under Section 2(j), the conclusion is inevitable that the live and proximate link does not exist and the nexus is snapped, contends the learned counsel. 7. First of all the counsel contends that case No.6 must be eschewed from consideration altogether. This, the counsel contends, is because final report has not been filed in that crime by the police under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel immediately submits that in the light of the decision in Elizabeth George v. State of Kerala, 2008(4) KLT 425 , it may not be possible for the petitioner to insist that filing of a final report as such is essential to enable the sponsoring and detaining authorities to reckon a prior contumacious conduct as relevant for the purpose of Section 2(o)(ii) and Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA. But the WPCRL.452/2009 -6- learned counsel argues that in so far as case No.6 is concerned, there is no assertion at all that a competent police officer on investigation had found the accused to have committed the offences alleged in case No.6. The counsel argues that even going by the dictum in Elizabeth George, the mere registration of a crime is insufficient to facilitate taking of cognizance of the said crime to entertain either the former or latter satisfactions under Section 3 of the KAAPA. Inasmuch as the sponsoring and the detaining authorities have not considered the question whether the investigating officer has found the detenu to have committed the offence in case No.6, the same must be eschewed from consideration, contends the learned counsel. It will be apposite at the very beginning to refer to Section 2(o)(ii) and Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA. The provisions are worded similarly. We extract the same below: “2 (o)(ii) found in any investigation or enquiry by WPCRL.452/2009 -7- a competent police officer, authority or competent court on complaints initiated by persons other than police officers, in two separate instances not forming part of the same transaction, to have committed any act within the meaning of the term 'goonda' as defined in clause (j) of Section 2.” “2(p)(iii) found, on investigation or enquiry by a competent police officer or other authority, on complaints initiated by persons other than police officers, in three separate instances not forming part of the same transaction to have committed any offence mentioned in clause (t) of Section 2.” (emphasis supplied) 8. To pass a valid order of detention the authority must first entertain the initial threshold satisfaction that the detenu is a known goonda or known rowdy. Only then he can be visited with a valid order of detention under Section WPCRL.452/2009 -8- 3 of the KAAPA. This is an objective factual satisfaction. The detenu must have been convicted for offences earlier by a court to bring him within the sweep of known goonda or known rowdy under Section 2(o)(i) and 2(p)(i) and (ii) of the KAAPA. But the legislature felt that such earlier conviction need not be insisted invariably. If the detenu has been “found on investigation, by a competent police officer to have committed the offences” in two or three cases, as the case may be, he can be brought under the sweep of the definition of known goonda and known rowdy according to the legislative mandate. 9. We find merit in this contention. First of all, it is admitted that on the date of the impugned order, final report in Case No.6 has not been filed at all. We shall straightaway go to Ext.P3 report of the second respondent submitted to the first respondent under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA. The relevant details about the sixth case is available in the following paragraph in page 3 of Ext.P3. WPCRL.452/2009 -9- “The sixth case is Cr.No.581/09, U/s.452,323,324,427 and 34 IPC of Kothamangalam police station reported on 07-03-09. In this case the respondent Jayan and his associates armed with deadly weapon trespassed into the house of the complainant Bruse on 07-03-2009 09.45 pm and assaulted the complainant by knife and iron rod. They also assaulted the complainants wife also they destroyed the house hold items. The case is under investigation.” 10. What is crucial, according to us, is that the Superintendent of Police in his report under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA had not stated that the investigating police officer on investigation has found the detenu to have committed the offences alleged in case No.6. 11. We now look at the order of detention, Ext.P1. The following observations in Ext.P1 refer to case No.6. “6. Crime No.581/09 U/s.452,323,324,4,27 and 34 IPC regisered at Kothamangalam Police Station on 07-03-09.” 12. The detaining authority also took note of the mere fact that the crime in the sixth case referred above had been registered. The detaining authority further took note WPCRL.452/2009 -10- of the fact that the said crime is under investigation. What perhaps is crucial is that the detaining authority also did not apply his mind to the question whether the police officer on investigation has found that the detenu has committed the offence. 13. In short both the sponsoring authority and the detaining authority merely took note of the fact that the crime has been registered and it was under investigation. They did not even advert to the question whether in the course of such investigation, the investigating police officer had found the detenu to have committed the offence. There is total and complete misdirection in law by the authorities who have not adverted to the relevant, crucial and significant aspect. 14. Driven to the wall, the learned Government Pleader points out to the court that at page 93 of the file, there is a letter dated 20-4-2009 submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kothamangalam to the Superintendent WPCRL.452/2009 -11- of Police in which it is reported that on investigation it is found that the accused has committed the offence alleged in case No.6. Ext.P3 report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police on 23-4-2009. Significantly, this report and its contents are not referred to in Ext.P3. The detaining authority in Ext.P1 also does not refer to this report and the contents of the said report. In the grounds of detention, reference is made to case No.6 in running page 4. We have gone through the same. The same does not also at all indicate that investigation by the competent police officer had led him to the conclusion that the offence alleged in case No.6 has been committed by the detenu. It is also equally relevant to note that in the index furnished in Ext.P3, no reference whatsoever is made to this report dated 20-4-2009 allegedly submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police to the Superintendent of Police. The availability of that report dated 20.4.2009 in the file, which has not been adverted to by the sponsoring and detaining authorities WPCRL.452/2009 -12- cannot in these circumstances come to the rescue of the respondents. 15. Elizabeth George supra is authority for the proposition that a final report need not be filed to attract 2 (o)(ii) and 2(p)(iii). We have doubted the said proposition in two subsequent decisions, Sathi v. State fo Kerala (2009(2)KLD 377) and Ranjini v. State of Kerala (2009(3)KHC 431) and have referred the question to the decision of a Full Bench. The Full Bench is yet to answer the said reference. We must hence assume that Elizabeth George is binding on us and covers the field now. The fact that final report has not been filed in Case No.6 may not hence be relevant. 16. Even going by the dictum in Elizabeth George and going by the plain language of Sections 2(o)(ii) and 2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA, mere registration of a crime cannot be reckoned as a relevant circumstance by the sponsoring authority or the detaining authority. Any number of crimes WPCRL.452/2009 -13- may be registered. It is only when on investigation in the crime the police officer entertains the satisfaction that the detenu has committed the offence that Sections 2(o)(ii) and 2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA can be made applicable. Even going by the dictum in Elizabeth George such finding by the investigating police officer is sine qua non to attract Sections 2(o)(ii) and 2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA. 17. In these circumstances, the conclusion appears to be inevitable that on the materials available before the detaining authority, the 6th case could not and should not have been reckoned either for entertaining the former, initial, threshold satisfaction or the latter subjective satisfaction. Crime has been registered. Investigation has commenced. Final report has not been filed. The sponsoring or the detaining authority had not adverted to the question whether the police officer investigating the crime had “on investigation found the detenu to have committed the offence” alleged against him. In these WPCRL.452/2009 -14- circumstances, we agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that case No.6 must be eschewed from consideration. If mind were applied properly by the detaining authority to the facts placed before the authority, the authority must have excluded case No.6 totally from consideration. 18. What remains to be considered is whether the live and proximate link can be said to exist if case No.6 is eschewed from consideration. We shall now consider that question in greater detail. 19. We will assume for the sake of arguments that the subjective satisfaction is entertained on both grounds. We will assume initially that the detenu is a depredator of environment under Section 2(g) and hence a goonda under the inclusive latter half of the definition of goonda in Section 2(j) and consequently a known goonda under Section 2(o). Alternatively, we shall assume that he is a rowdy under Section 2(t) and hence a goonda under the latter half of the WPCRL.452/2009 -15- definition of goonda and consequently a known goonda under Section 2(o) of the KAAPA. Case No.1 referred above relates to an offence falling within Section 2(t). Consequently it may be argued and we assume for the sake of arguments that he is a goonda under Section 2(j) of the KAAPA being a rowdy. But case No.1 took place as early as on 15-1-2007, the impugned order was passed on 8-5-2009. Cases 2 to 5 enumerated relate to the allegation that the detenu is a depredator of environment. They reveal that the last of the alleged acts was committed as early as only on 3-8-2007. Thus a period of about two years had elapsed from the last of the alleged acts when the order of detention was passed on 8-5-2009. It was executed later only on 1-11-2009. If the detenu is reckoned as a rowdy, the last act was committed on 15-1- 2007. If he is reckoned as a depredator of environment, the last act was committed on 3-8-2007. Either way, it cannot validly be contended that the live and proximate link and WPCRL.452/2009 -16- the nexus had not been snapped on 8-5-2009 and 1-11- 2009. If the sixth case is excluded, then there has been no contumacious act for a period of about two years prior to the order of detention and arrest. That is sufficient time for a sinner to turn a saint and a saint to turn a sinner. If the sixth case is excluded, we have no hesitation to agree that there is no live and proximate link and the nexus must be held to be snapped. We accept the contention that the 6th case must be excluded and the nexus must be held to be snapped. 20. For that sole reason, we are satisfied that the impugned order does warrant interference invoking our constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 . The challenge succeeds. 21. In the light of the acceptance of the said contention, we are not proceeding to consider the other contentions which do appear to us to be important and deserve consideration – i.e.the contention regarding the WPCRL.452/2009 -17- delay in execution of the order of detention dated 8-5-2009 till 1-11-2009 as also the reliance on undisclosed confidential reports in Ext.P3. 22. In the result: a)This Writ petition is allowed. b)The impugned order of detention Ext.P1 and the consequent detention of the detenu Jayachandran @ Jayan is set aside. c)If the detention of the detenu is not necessary in any other case, he shall forthwith be released from custody by the prison authorities from the Central prison, Viyyur. d) The Registry shall forthwith communicate the order to the prison authorities. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE WPCRL.452/2009 -18- ks.