Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J.

The following questions arise for consideration in this Writ Petition:

(i) Whether an offence committed by one of the immediate neighbours in an incident that occurred due to the dispute between them should be omitted from the computation of the number of offences taken into account for deciding whether a person is a known rowdy or not?

(ii) Whether the proceedings under 107 of Criminal Procedure Code initiated against the detenu in this case were sufficient or not for preventing him from committing anti-social activities?

(iii) Whether the detention order passed on 23.6.2012 after the last prejudicial activity allegedly committed by the detenu on 6.2.2012 is vitiated by delay?

2. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu was placed under preventive detention with immediate effect at Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, by Ext. P1 detention order dated 23.6.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent, the District Magistrate. The 2nd respondent has passed Ext. P1 order exercising his powers under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [for short, KAA(P)A]. Pursuant to Ext. P1, the detenu was taken into custody on 29.6.2012 and admitted him to the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext. P1 order has been approved by the Government, the first respondent, as per order dated 5.7.2012. The Advisory Board sent a report dated 25.8.2012 finding that there was sufficient cause to detain the detenu. Thereafter, the first respondent has issued Ext. P7 order dated 5.9.2012 confirming the order of detention and directing to continue the detention for six months from the date of detention. The petitioner challenges Ext. P1 detention order on various grounds in this Writ Petition.

3. Heard Shri. Blaze K. Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Shri. K.I. Abdul Rasheed, the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. Detailed arguments have been advanced by both the sides before us.

4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, 3rd respondent, submitted Ext. P2 report to the 2nd respondent requesting him to pass an order under Section 3 of KAA(P)A for detaining the detenu as he is a 'known rowdy' indulging himself in anti-social activities necessitating his detention. The 2nd respondent, after considering Ext. P2, found the detenu to be a 'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2 (p) of KAA(P)A. The 2nd respondent, in Ext. P1 detention order, considered the following five criminal cases in which the detenu is involved:

Ext. P3 copy of the judgment (not a full text) of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -V, Thiruvananthapuram, shows that the detenu was acquitted in Crime No.198 of 2008. Moreover, Crime No.198 of 2008 has not been taken into account by the second respondent for passing Ext. P1 detention order as it was registered based on the complaint of a police officer. Ext. P4 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, shows that the detenu was acquitted under Section 320(8) of Criminal Procedure Code in Crime No.418 of 2009 as the offences have been compounded. In other cases, after investigation, Final Reports have been filed in the court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitio