(Per T.R.Ramachandran Nair, J.)

These writ petitions are filed seeking for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the production of detenus, viz. Sri. Jojo George, Mujeeb Rahiman and Sheen Mondy Jose alias Saju; to release them and; to quash Ext. P-1 order of detention. Since these writ petitioners raise common issues, they are heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. C.C. Thomas on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions, Sri K.K. Ravindranath on behalf of the respondents.

3. The short facts leading to the disposal of the cases are the following:-

In W.P. (Crl.) No. 265/2008, the detenu is one Jojo George, in W.P.(Crl.) No.266/2008, the detenu is one Mujeeb Rahiman and in W.P. (Cr.) No. 267/008, the detenu is one Sheen Mondy Jose alias Sabu. The orders of detention are dated 25-6-2008, passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Palakkad. They have been issued under the power conferred on the said Officer by the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is stated in the respective orders that the detenus are accused in Crime Nos. 26/2008, 181/2006 and 663/2007 of various police stations. The sum and sub-stance of the allegation is that the detenus are arrayed as accused in different cases registered as Crime Nos. 26/2008,181/2006,263/2006 and 663/ 2007 for smuggling illegal spirit. They have been aiding, abetting, conspiring, executing smuggling of spirit and distributing spirit in Kerala with scant respect to the law of the land. It is alleged that thus they have been indulging in activities of transporting and distribution of spirit in violation of the Abkari Act and are active members of an organized mafia involved in smuggling of spirit into Kerala from neighbouring States and are 'Known Goondas' under Section 2(c) of the Act.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners while attacking the orders of detention contended that the detenus will not come under the definition of "known goonda" as per Section 2(0 )(ii) of the Act, since there is no seizure of alcohol/spirit from the detenue in the presence of the witnesses. It is also contended that they cannot be termed as "known rowdy" under Section 2(p) of the Act also. It is contended that going by Section 34 of the Abkari Act, only a person found committing an offence punishable under the said Act alone is liable to be arrested and if at all the allegations are correct, even then it is to be conceded that the detenus were not present at the time of seizure of spirit in the four cases relied upon by the respondents and there is also no evidence to show that the contraband seized were under the control/possession of the detenus. It is on this premise that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is a tacked. It is also contended by relying upon Exts. P-4 to P-9 orders passed by this Court and by the Sessions Court relating to the applications for bail, etc. of the respective detenus that it has been found therein that there are no materials to connect the accused with the crime. It is submitted that regular bail has been granted under Section41-A of the Abkari Act after hearing the prosecutor also. It is, therefore, contended that the detaining authority has not applied its mind to the findings rendered by the Sessions Court in those orders which have been passed after perusal of the case diary also. It is, therefore, submitted that as these are materials which ought to have been considered by the detaining authority, failure of consider the orders and the findings rendered by the Sessions Court in those orders will result in total non-application of mind. It is, therefore, contended that there is nothing to connect the detenus with the crimes concerned and in these cases as no charge sheet has been filed, no report could have been forwarded by the Police Offi