IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C.S. SUDHA, JJ.
ABHILASH S/O CHANDRAN – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
W.P. (Crl.) No. 1235 of 2022
Decided On : 14-02-2023
Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 - Section15(1), (2), (3), 2(p)(iii), (t), 3(1) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 107 - Restrained from entering into territorial limits - Call for all records - Issue a writ of certiorari and therefore call for all records pertaining to exhibit Pi and exhibit P5 orders and quash same as illegal - Dispense with filing of translation of vernaclar documents produced along with this writ petition - Allegations referred to above, may not be reflected in specific materials collected prior to personal hearing conducted in this case.
Findings of the Court:
Court note that Sec. i5(3) of KAA(P)A gives power to competent authority of Government or extemment authority, which issued proceedings under Sec. i5(i), on its own motion, to annul or amend order at any time either in part or in full - If petitioner is advised that he can make out a case to convince either State Government or externment authority to exercise their discretion in terms of Sec. 15(3), then it is ordered that nothing in this judgment by itself would preclude petitioner from approaching such authorities to consider exercise of discretion, in terms of Sec. 15(3) - In case petitioner makes any such request, in terms of Sec. 15(3), it is for said competent statutory authority to deal with same, in accordance with law and without much delay from date of receipt of such request - No other orders and directions are called for in this case.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
1. The prayers in the above captioned Writ Petition (Criminal) are as follows:
(II) Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernaclar documents produced along with this writ petition.”
2. Heard Smt. Saipooja, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Petitioner herein is mainly aggrieved by Ext.P1 externment order dated 28.10.2022 issued by R-2, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, under Sec. 15(1) of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, (for short, KAA(P)A) whereby it has been ordered that, in view of the factual aspects stated therein, the petitioner is restrained from entering into the territorial limits of the Thiruvananthapuram Rural Police Chief, R-3 herein, for a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.
4. The brief facts, leading to Ext.P1 externment order are as follows:
(i) In Aruvikkara Police Station Crime 09/2019 U/s 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 326, 427, 307, 120(b) IPC, the petitioner is figured as A2 in the FIR. The brief of the case is that on 04.01.2019 at about 9 PM A1 to A6 unlawfully assembled and brutally manhandled the defacto complainant Lijeesh and inflicted grievous injuries with the intention to kill him on the pretext that he will appear as the witness in a murder case where in the petitioner is the 1st accused (Aruvikkara PS Cr.63/2015 U/s 324, 307 and 302 IPC). The petitioner was absconding after committing the offence. Investigation of the case was completed and charge sheeted on 28.08.2021. The case is under trial as SC 418/2022 at Asst. Sessions Court, Nedumangadu. Next hearing is on n20.01.2023.
(ii) In Aruvikkara police station Crime 1778/2020 u/s 450, 395, 294(b), 427, 506(ii) IPC and Sec. 27 of Arms Act, this petitioner along with other co-accused trespassed into the rented lodge room of the defacto complainant, vandalized his personal belongings and committed theft of currencies worth Rs. 4500/- kept in a purse. The petitioner is figured as A1, absconded after committing the offence. The case is charge sheeted before the JFMC II, Nedumangad and is under trial as CC. 3185/2021. Next hearing date is 14.02.2023.
(iii). In Aruvikkara Police Station Crime 454/2022 U/s 341, 294(b), 506(i), 195(A), 34 IPC, due to the enmity that the complainant deposed witness statement in Cr.1644/2011 against him, this petitioner and 3 associates obstructed the complainant at Vettikonam junction and threatened to kill him and warned him from appearing as witness in the case against them. Delinquent is figured as A3 arrested on 29.04.2022 and remanded to judicial custody. The case is charge sheeted before the JFMC II on 30.06.2022. The case is under trial as CC 898/2022. The hearing date is not yet announced.
5. Going by the allegations projected in the above said three crimes, there may not be any serious dispute that the petitioner satisfies the definitional parameters of “Known Rowdy”, in terms of Section 2(p)(iii) r/w Section 2(t) of the Act. The above said third and last crime, Crime No. 454/2022 of Aruvikkara police station, was stated to have been committed on 18.4.2022 and the same was reported and registered by
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.
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 behavior.
Section 107 of Cr.PC reads as security for keeping peace in other cases.
The court upheld the authority's discretion in assessing criminal involvement for externment, affirming the importance of subjective satisfaction in such determinations despite claims of subsequent s....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an externment order must be based on subjective satisfaction arrived at on the basis of objective material, and strict compliance with the leg....
An externment order must be based on objective material, comply with legal requirements, and be justified by extraordinary circumstances. It must also consider the execution and breach of bonds for g....
The subjective satisfaction for externment must be based on objective material, and the order must pass all legal tests, including strict compliance with the relevant act and consideration of extraor....
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.
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.