K. T. Sankaran, J. :

The Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram passed Ext. P1 order dated 3.4.2013, under Section 15(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as KAAPA), against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a known-goonda. By Ext. P1 order, the petitioner was restrained from entering into Attingal Sub Division for a period of six months.

2. Challenging Ext. P1 order, the petitioner filed Ext. P2 representation before the Advisory Board. Along with Ext. P2 representation, the petitioner produced Annexures 1 to 25.

3. The Advisory Board passed Ext. P3 order dated 25.5.2013 dismissing the original petition which was registered on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner.

4. The Inspector General of Police took into account four crimes registered against the petitioner at Kadakkavoor Police Station (Crime Nos. 366/2012, 400/2012, 475/2012 and 564/2012). The Inspector General of Police arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is a known goonda as defined under Section 2(o) of KAAPA. The Advisory Board noticed that in Crime No.564/2012, the police filed a refer report and, therefore, that crime was excluded from the purview of consideration. The Advisory Board also excluded Crime No.366/2012 from the purview of consideration on the ground that the witnesses to the seizure mahazar (pertaining to seizure of sand) are none other than the police officers who cannot be termed as independent witnesses so as to attract the proviso to Section 2(o) of KAAPA. The Advisory Board relied on the decision in Vinija v. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KLT 110) : (2009 Cri LJ 4555 (Ker)) to arrive at that conclusion. The Advisory Board held that still the order of externment would be valid since the two cases registered against the petitioner are sufficient to hold that he is a known goonda.

5. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P1 order passed by the Inspector General of Police and Ext. P3 order passed by the Advisory Board.

6. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that the view taken in Vinija v. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KLT 110) : (2009 Cri LJ 4555 (Ker)) that the seizure should be in the presence of independent witnesses requires reconsideration. He submitted that the proviso to clause (o) of Section 2 uses the expression in the presence of witnesses and it does not say in the presence of independent witnesses. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that he is raising this contention in order to support the conclusion arrived at by the Advisory Board, by challenging that part of the order which is against the State.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Advisory Board did not properly consider the contentions put forward by the petitioner and the averments and allegations made in the representation submitted by the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the Advisory Board has got wide powers under Section 15(2) of KAAPA to annul, amend or confirm the order and that is akin to an appellate power. He relied on the decision in Shibu v. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KLT 872).

8. In Ext. P2 representation submitted by the petitioner before the Advisory Board, the petitioner raised the following among other contentions:

3. In the 1st week of April 2012 the petitioner was summoned by the Dy.S.P. and demanded money from him alleging that he is involved in the illegal trading of sand.

4. About a week thereafter FIR 336/2012 of Kadakkavoor Police Station was registered against one Shibu alleging violation of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of the River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act (hereinafter referred to as the Sand Act). The petitioner was in no way connected with the said Shibu and he was also falsely implicated on account of the illegal interference of the Dy.S.P.

5. Again FIR No.400/2012 of Kadakkavoor Police Station was registered against the petitione

Click Here to Read the rest of this document