IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Alexander Thomas, Ziyad Rahman A.A., JJ.
Shamnad Amiyan – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Home Secretary, Home Department And Ors., - Respondents
WP(CRL.) NO. 1290 OF 2022
Decided On : 09-03-2023
Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 - Section 15(1), (a), (2), (4), 2(j), (o)(i), (a) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 107 - Restrain from entering into territorial limits - Likely to indulge in further serious prejudicial anti-social activities - Opportunity of personal hearing - Known Goonda - Issue order calling for records leading to Exhibit P1 and P5 and quash same – Link between last prejudicial activity and purpose of externment has been likely snapped - Para 19.
Finding of the Court :
Court is of view that petitioner is entitled to succeed in above second contention, as delay has not been properly explained - In other words, delay is inordinate - Hence, link between last prejudicial activity and purpose of externment has been likely snapped, as also live link and proximate link has been snapped which invites interdiction of this Court in judicial review – Court is of view that, said plea need not be considered in present proceedings and in case petitioner has any legally justiciable grievance, he may work out remedies, by challenging same in manner known to law - All such issues are left open to be raised and decided in such other appropriate proceedings - No other orders or directions are called for - Learned counsel for petitioner would also submit that, above said criminal proceedings has been initiated only for alleged violation of Ext.P1 externment order and now, since Ext.P1 has been quashed by this Court, consequent action will not have any independent leg to stand etc - It is for petitioner to urge all such contentions in other appropriate proceedings.
Result: W.P disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Crl) are as follows:
ii) Issue any other order as this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and also that are prayed for during the pendency of the WP(C) ;
iii) Dispense with the filing of translation of Vernacular Documents.”
2. Heard Sri.P.M.Manoj, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned Exhibit P1 order dated 19.8.2022, issued by 3rd respondent-The Deputy Inspector General of Police [for short ‘DIG’], whereby the petitioner has been restrained from entering into the territorial limits of Malappuram District for a period of one year from the date of receipt of the said order, by exercising the powers under Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [for short ‘KAAP Act’].
4. The brief facts leading to the issuance of the aforesaid Writ proceedings are hereunder:
Six crimes had been reckoned for treating the petitioner herein as a ‘Known Goonda’, as conceived under Section 2(j) r/w section 2(o)(i) of the above Act. The details of the six crimes are mentioned in page 3 of Ext.P1 externment order [See page 29 of the WP(Crl] and the same has also been reiterated in paragraph No.7 of page 3 of the counter affidavit dated 01.03.2023, filed by 3rd respondent-DIG. The last one of the six crimes (supra) is said to have been committed by the petitioner on 22.01.2022. He was arrested in relation to his involvement in the said crime on 08.02.2022 and was remanded to judicial custody and thereafter, the Sessions Court, Manjeri has granted bail to him on 03.03.2022 and he was released on bail accordingly. The investigation has been completed in the said sixth crime and final report, by way of charge sheet, has been filed by the Investigating Agency on 23.03.2022.
5. Thereafter, the 4th respondent, the District Police Chief, Malappuram as sponsoring authority has submitted report dated 21.7.2022, recommending to the 3rd respondent, the District Inspector General of Police, that in view of the facts and circumstances of the said report, this is a fit case to enable the 3rd respondent to issue an externment order conceived under Section 15(1)(a) of the KAAPA Act, so as to restrain the petitioner herein from entering into the territorial limits of Malappuram district, with a view to prevent him from committing any further prejudicial anti-social activities, as conceived under Section 2(a) of the Act. After consideration of the said report, the 3rd respondent-DIG of Police has issued statutory show cause notice dated 26.7.2022 to the petitioner directing him to show cause as to why an order of externment, as conceived under Section 15(1)(a), shall not be issued against him, so as to restrain him from entering into the territorial limits of Malappuram District, as otherwise, he is likely to indulge in further serious prejudicial anti-social activities. The showcause notice was received by the petitioner on 30.07.2022. The statutory mandate of hearing was complied with by the 3rd respondent-DIG of Police, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing in the above matter on 5.8.2022. It is thereafter that the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P1 externment order dated 19.8.2022, directing that the petitioner shall not enter into the territorial limits of Malappuram district, for the reasons stated therein, for a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. Exhibit P1 order was served on the petitioner on 23.8.2022 and so, the period of one year fixed in Ext.P1, was upto 22.8.2023.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed statutory representation dated 5.9.2022, under Section 15(2) of the KAAPA Act, befor
Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamilnadu
S.K.Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal
Serajul v. State of West Bengal
Suresh Mahato v. the District Magistrate
Section 107 of Cr.PC reads as security for keeping peace in other cases.
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.
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.
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.
Sufficiency of subjective satisfaction is not amenable for judicial review.
It is well settled, preventive detention is a harsher remedy, whereby the life and liberty of a person is at stake even without a formal trial to adjudicate his guilt.
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.
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.