Point of Law: Section 2(p) of Act reads as “known rowdy” means any person, who had been, by reason of acts done within previous seven years as calculated from date of order imposing any restriction or detention under this Act.

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

1. The prayers in the afore-captioned Writ Petition (Criminal), seeking for a writ of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari, in regard to the challenge against the detention order issued against the detenu, under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, (KAA(P)A), is as follows:

“(i) To issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus or any other Appropriate writ, order or direction compelling and commanding the respondents to produce the detenu before the Honourable Court and quash the Ext.P1 detention order which was approved and confirmed, order confirming the detention order, the order disposing the detention order are liable to be quashed and to set the detenu at liberty.

(ii) Petitioner also prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language.

(iii) To grant such other reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard Sri. C. Rajendran, learned Advocate instructed by Smt. R.S. Sreevidya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu involved in this case. In the instant case, the 4th respondent/District Police Chief, who is the sponsoring authority, has given reports to the 3rd respondent/District Magistrate, the authorized detaining authority, stating that, in view of the factual aspects stated therein, steps may be taken by the 3rd respondent to issue orders under Section 3(1) of KAA(P)A to preventively detain the detenu, as otherwise, he is likely to commit prejudicial anti-social activities. The 3rd respondent/District Magistrate has issued Ext.P1 detention order dated 14.7.2022 under Section 3(1) of the Act, ordering that, in view of the factual aspects stated therein, the detenu is ordered to be detained in order to prevent him from committing further prejudicial anti-social activities.

4. Ext.P1 detention order dated 14.7.2022 was executed by the arrest and detention of the detenu on 18.7.2022. The competent authority of the 1st respondent/State Government in the Home Department has issued orders, as per Ext.P4, approving Ext.P1 detention order on 30.7.2022 whereby it has been ordered that six months' validity period of Ext.P1 detention order will be upto 17.1.2023. Thereafter, the competent authority of the State Government in the Home Department has referred the matter to the statutory Advisory Board for their considered opinion on 6.8.2022. The Advisory Board has given report to the 1st respondent/State on 19.9.2022 recommending that, in view of the facts stated therein, there is sufficient cause for the preventive detention of the detenu as per Ext.P1. Thereupon, the respondent/State in the Home Department has issued Ext.P7 G.O. (Rt) No. 2666/2022/Home dated 27.9.2022 confirming Ext.P1 detention order dated 14.7.2022 under Section 10(4) of the Act.

5. In the instant case, the eight crimes, in which the detenu has been involved, has been reckoned for the purpose of Ext.P1 detention order. The details of the said eight cases are contained in Ext.P1 and the same has also been reiterated in Para 6, Pages 5 to 10 of the counter affidavit dated 1.12.2022 filed by the 1st respondent/State. The last such crime in which the detenu has been involved is Crime No. 391 of 2022 of Valancherry Police Station, Thrissur district, which is said to have been committed on 2.7.2022 and the FIR has been registered on 3.7.2022. In that case, the detenu has been arrested on 3.7.2022 and he was under judicial remand. It was when the detenu was under judicial remand, in regard to his involvement in the last crime, that Ext.P1 detention order dated 14.7.2022 has been passed by the 3rd respondent. The details of the reports filed by the 4th respondent/sponsoring authority, which led to the issuance of Ext.P1 detention order by the 3rd respondent, are as follows.

6. Initially, the 4th respond