Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. Does the law declared by a Division Bench of this Court in Elizabeth George Vs. State of Kerala [2008 (4) KLT 425], holding that filing of charge sheet under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. is not necessary to invoke the power and pass an order under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ['the KAAPA' in short] require reconsideration ?

When can it be authentically stated that a person “had been found” in/on investigation by a competent police officer/such other authority/Court as the case may be, to have committed any act/offence within the meaning of the term “known goonda” or “known rowdy” under Section 2 (o) (ii) and (p) (iii) respectively of the KAAPA ?

Will the acquittal of the accused/detenue in one of the three cases referred to in W.P. (Crl.) No. 410 of 2011 – witnesses having been turned hostile and also pursuant to amicable settlement (between parties) tilt the balance in favour of the detenue to contend that the provisions of KAAPA/Section 3 will not be attracted under such circumstances ?

These are the points to be answered in these cases, apart from the question whether there was proper application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and the order of preventive detention is sustainable ?

2. In W.P.(Crl.) No. 410 of 2011 an interim order is seen passed by the Division Bench to cause the detenue to be released on conditions [without arriving at a finding on facts]; whereas no such interim order has been passed in the other case. The matter has been referred to by the learned Judges, vide order dated 11.10.2011 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 410 of 2011; observing that though the very same issue was referred earlier by way of separate orders of reference passed on 09.09.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 20606 of 2009 and on 16.12.2009 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 460 of 2009, the proceedings were never taken to a logical conclusion and the reference was not answered, as by the time Full Bench concerned considered the matter, the maximum period of detention [6 months] was already over. In the said circumstances, the above Writ Petitions came to be closed as per the verdict passed by the Full Bench on 30.11.2010 in W.P.(C) No. 20606 of 2009 and connected cases. It was accordingly, that reference to those orders was also made in the subsequent order dated 11.10.2011 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 410 of 2011, stating that it will be in continuation of the earlier orders as aforesaid, to be read in conjunction, for proper appreciation of the points involved. In the order dated 23.08.2013 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 295 of 2013, the order of reference dated 04.10.2011 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 410 of 2011 was adverted to, and since the issue was found pending consideration before the Full Bench, W.P.(Crl.) No. 295 of 2013 also came to be referred/ordered to be tagged along with the said case.

3. Heard Sri. C. Rajendran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases and Sri. K. Anas, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State/Department.

4. By virtue of the powers conferred upon the State with reference to Entry No. 3 in the 'Concurrent List' [List III] of the 7th schedule to the Constitution of India, the State of Kerala has enacted KAAPA, specifically to provide for the effective prevention and control of certain kinds of anti-social activities in the State of Kerala. By virtue of the power conferred upon the authority under Section 3 of the KAAPA, if such authority gets satisfied on the information received from a Police Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, with regard to the anti-social activities being committed by any 'known goonda' or 'known rowdi' [as defined under the Act] within the State of Kerala; it is open for the said authority to detain such person.

5. As per the Scheme of the Statute, such order has to be approved by the Government within 12 days, failing which, the order will become inoperative. The rights of the citizens are sought to be protected by