1. Petitioner, the mother of Vishnu @ Motta Vishnu, who has been detained in Central Prison, Viyyur, pursuant to an order of detention dated 9.3.2012 issued under the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KAAPA’), challenges the order of detention.

2. The order of detention was issued on 9.3.2012. The detenu was arrested on 11.3.2012. The Government approved the order of detention under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA, on 20.3.2012. The order was confirmed under Section 10(4) of the KAAPA, on 17.5.2012.

3. In the order of detention, it is stated that the detenu is involved in 5 criminal cases and therefore, he satisfies the definition of “known rowdy” under 2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA.

In the grounds of detention, the details of the cases in which the detenu is involved are

stated. The following are the cases in which the detenu is an accused:

Crime Number and Police Station Offences Current Status

951/2010 – Kollam East Police 341, 323, 324, 294 (b), 506(ii) Charge Sheeted on 5.8.2010

Station r/w 34 IPC pending trial as

C.C.No.2399/2010 of JFMC,

Kollam.

1339/2010 – Kollam East 341, 323, 427 r/w 34 IPC Charge sheeted

Police Station S.T.No.2221/2010 of JFMC,

Kollam.

1343/2010 – Kollam East 341, 323, 324, 427 r/w 34 IPC Charge Sheeted

Police Station C.C.No.2491/2010 of JFMC,

Kollam 9.9.2010

811/2011 – Kollam East Police 323, 294(b), 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC Charge sheeted on

Station 30.3.2012 of JFMC,

Kollam 9.9.2010

1500/2011 – Kollam East 341, 323 IPC Charge sheeted on

Police Station 13.12.2012 as

C.C.No.31/2012 of JFMC,

Kollam 9.9.2010

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detaining authority did not properly apply his mind wile passing the order of detention. The crimes referred to in the grounds of detention are of such a nature that it cannot be said that the detenu was involved in any antisocial activities within the meaning of the KAAPA and that in order to prevent him from committing any antisocial activity, it is necessary to make an order of detention. It is also submitted that even if all the allegations levelled against the detenu are taken as true, no authority could arrive at a conclusion that the activities of the detenu affected the public safety, public order or public health or the safety of individuals. It is submitted that in the nature of the offences alleged against the detenu, ordinary criminal laws of the land would be sufficient to deal with the situation and the extraordinary recourse to preventive detention was uncalled for.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu and another [(2011)5 SCC 244] and Munagala Yadamma v. State of A.P. and others (2012 ACR 383).

6. In Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu and another [(2011)5 SCC 244], the Supreme Court held:

“21. It is all very well to say that preventive detention is preventive not punitive. The truth of the matter, though, is that in substance a detention order of one year (or any other period) is a punishment of one year’s imprisonment. What difference is it to the detenu whether his imprisonment is called preventive or punitive?

x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

30. Whenever an order under a preventive detention law is challenged one of the questions the court must ask in deciding its legality is: Was the ordinary law of the land sufficient to deal with the situation? If the answer is in the affirmative, the detention order will be illegal. In the present case, the charge against the detenu was of selling expired drugs after changing their labels. Surely the relevant provisions in the Indian Penal Code and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act were sufficient to deal with this situation. Hence, in our opinion, for this reason also the detention order in question was illegal.

31. In this connection, it may be noted that it is true that the decision of the 2 Judge Bench of this Court in Biram Chand v. Stat