IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Alexander Thomas, Sophy Thomas, JJ.
Asker Ali, S/o. Rasak – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondents
W.P.(CRL.) No. 873 Of 2022
Decided On : 28-11-2022
Kerala Anti-Social (Activities) Prevention Act (KAAPA), 2007 - Section15(1), 2(a), (p)(3), (t), 15 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120 B, 365, 395, 411 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 22(h), 29, 2o(b)(ii)(A) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 107 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(5) - Externment Order - Seeking for Quashment - Seeking for quashment in relation to an externment order passed against petitioner – When Sec.107 Cr.P.C. proceedings was set in motion by police authorities against petitioner and as to since when same was pending before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, etc - Para 21.
Finding of the Court: An omission on part of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who is competent authority under Sec.107 of Cr.P.C - Said omission on part of Sub- Divisional Magistrate cannot be a ground for respondents to justify Ext.P1 externment order passed under Sec.15(1), which would seriously curtail fundamental right of externee for free movement, as envisaged in Article 19(5) of Constitution of India - Decision in Sheeja’s case supra that since pendency of crimes have led to exercise of jurisdictional power under Sec.107 Cr.P.C., those proceedings under Sec.107 Cr.P.C. should have been led to its logical end, requiring writ petitioner to execute a bond and maintain good behaviour and, such procedure was not adopted - Hence, it was held that decision making process, in relation to an externment order, in a similar case, was held to be vitiated and was thus, interdicted by this Court - So, it is only to be held that petitioner will also succeed on basis of second ground - However, as ordered by Division Bench of this Court in Sheeja’s case supra, it is ordered that petitioner shall report before local Station House Officer, concerned, on every Saturday at 11 a.m. till term of expiry of Ext.
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
(Alexander Thomas, J.)
1. The prayers in the instant W.P.(Crl.), seeking for quashment in relation to an externment order passed against the petitioner herein, as to the provisions of Sec.15(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social (Activities) Prevention Act (KAAPA), 2007 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’ for short), are as follows:-
And
ii) Grant such other reliefs that this Honourable Court deem fit and proper to grant in the interest of justice."
2. Heard Smt.Saipooja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.A. Anas, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents.
3. The order under challenge in this writ petition (criminal) is the impugned Ext.P1 order dated 09.06.2022, issued by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kannur Range, under Sec.15(1) of the Act, by which it has been ordered that the petitioner, who is an ordinary resident of Wayanad District, shall not enter into the limits of the said district for a period of six months therefrom, in order to prevent him from further prejudicial antisocial activities, as understood in Sec.2(a) of the Act.
4. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of this case, are as follows: The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in three crimes, the details of which are given in Ext.P.1 order as well as in para No.6 on pages 2 & 3 of the counter affidavit dated 02.11.2022, filed by the 2nd respondent.
5. Since there are no factual disputes regarding the said case details, the abovesaid contents of para 6 of the abovesaid counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent are extracted hereunder, for easy perusal:
(i) Crime No. 593/15 of Meenangadi Police station registered u/s 341, 294(b), 307 r/w 34 IPC :
The petitioner is arrayed as A2 for attempting to murder the neighbour of the defacto complainant. On 27.12.15 at 23.00 O'clock at a place called Kaniyampata Village MeleKarani, neighbor Wahid of the complainant Abdul Gafur. 23/15 S/o Siddique, Elayidath House, MeleKarani with the help of accused Bijesh Kumar, Ashkar Ali and Praveen P.P entered the place and stabbed the complainant several times with a knife and tried to kill him etc. facts. A case was registered for the above matter as Crime No 593/15 U/s.341,294(b). 307 r/w 34 IPC in Meenangadi police Station. The investigating officer of this case, found he was guilty along with the other accused and submitted the charge sheet before the honorable court on 10.03.16 and the honorable Kalpetta Additional sessions Judge Court-II SC 283/16 on 08.02.19 and the accused was convicted.
(ii) Crime No. 96/2019 of Karippur Police station registered u/s 365, 392, 506(i) r/w 34 IPC (Altered to 120 B, 365, 395, 411):
The petitioner is arrayed as third accused in the above case for the offence of snatching the gold of 300 gms being carried by the defacto complainant who alighted from a flight landed at Karippur Airport from Sharjah on 04/07/2019. The case was charge sheeted on 03/11/2020 and pending before the Addl. District & Sessions Court-II, Manjeri as SC 629/2021.
(iii) Crime No. 23/2022 of Padinjarathara Police station registered u/s 22(b), 29, 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act 1985:
The petitioner is arrayed as A12 in the above case and on 10.01.2022, the accused were found in possession of MDMA, Ganja in a drug party conducted in a Resort. The fact can be discernible from the FIR of the case (Exhibit P3) and remand report (Exhibit P4).”
6. Going by the details of the abovesaid three crimes, there is no serious dispute that the petitioner would fulfill the definitional parameters of “known-rowdy”, as understood in Sec.2(p)(3) read with Sec.2(t) of the Act.
7. According to the respondents, the last case registered against the petitioner out of the three crimes mentioned
Section 107 of Cr.PC reads as security for keeping peace in other cases.
The delay in issuing an externment order does not necessarily invalidate the order if the live link for passing the order is maintained, and the authority has the power to prevent anti-social activit....
Timely action is essential in externment proceedings to maintain a live link between the last prejudicial act and the order, ensuring the authority's satisfaction is justified.
Unreasonable delay in externment proceedings can sever the connection to criminal activities and warrant modification of the order.
Excise officers should be treated at par with police officers for purpose of attracting bar against admissibility of confession as in Section 25 of Evidence Act.
The delay in issuing an externment order without justification severed necessary connections with the alleged prejudicial activities, necessitating the order's annulment.
The court affirmed that the delay in issuing an externment order under the KAA(P) Act was not excessive and that such orders can coexist with ongoing proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C.
A jurisdictional authority must consider bail conditions before issuing an externment order under the relevant statute.
Preventive detention under KAA(P) Act is justified in light of recurrent criminal activity despite existing legal measures.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.