Point of law: “Public order” is synonymous with public safety and tranquillity: it is the absence of disorder involving breaches of local significance in contradistinction to national upheavals, such as revolution, civil strife, war, affecting the security of the State.

JUDGMENT :

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This writ petition is at the instance of the mother of George Francis, who has been detained pursuant to an order passed under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [hereinafter referred to as the “KAA(P)A”]. The detenue has been detained classifying him as a known goonda, as referable under Section 2(oi) of the KAA(P)A. Section 2(oi) defines ‘known goonda’ as follows:

(o) "known goonda" means a goonda who had been, for acts done within the previous seven years as calculated from the date of the order imposing any restriction or detention under this Act,-

(i) found guilty, by a competent court or authority at least once for an offence within the meaning of the term 'goonda' as defined in clause (j) of section 2.

The following five crimes have been cited in Ext.P1 detention order:

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Section 2(i) read with Section 2(j) argues that the detenue cannot be either treated as a drug offender or as a gunda within the statutory provisions as above. It is appropriate to refer Sections 2(i) and 2(j) which reads thus:

(i) "drug-offender" means a person who illegally cultivates, manufactures, stocks, transports, sells or distributes any drug in contravention of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Central Act 61 of 1985) or in contravention of any other law for the time being in force, or who knowingly does anything abetting or facilitating any such activity;

(j) "goonda" means a person who indulges in any anti-social activity or promotes or abets any illegal activity which are harmful for the maintenance of the public order directly or indirectly and includes a bootlegger, a counterfeiter, a depredator of environment, a digital data and copy right pirate, a drug offender, a hawala racketeer, an hired ruffian, rowdy, an immoral traffic offender, a loan shark [a money chain offender] or a property grabber;

3. According to the petitioner, the offences enlisted as Nos.2 and 3 are petty offences and he was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and Rs.1000/- respectively. It is further submitted that in respect of the offence enlisted as No.1, no final report was filed even after the lapse of more than 4 years. It is further submitted that in respect of offence No.4, the detenue and the defacto complainant compromised and based on the compromise, the detenue was enlarged on bail.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor, placing reliance on the judgments in Ansar T.A v. State of Kerala and Others [2017 (2) KHC 413], Sameena Beevi v State of Kerala and Others [2014 (4) KHC 695], Vijayamma and Another v. State of Kerala and Others [2014 (4) KHC 368], Stenny Aleyamma Sju v. State of Kerala and Others [2017 (3) KHC 517], submitted that neither on the basis of the settlement nor on the categorization of the offences as petty offences, the detenue can question the detention order and, particularly, referring to the judgment in Ansar T.A.’s case (supra), argued that the possession of narcotic drug itself would attract Section 2(i) of KAA(P)A, even if it was of a small quantity.

5. The KAA(P)A being a preventive detention law, the same has to be strictly construed (see the judgment of Apex Court in Prakash Chandra Yadav @ Mungeri Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. {CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4324 OF 2023}

6. The Full Bench of this Court in Stenny Aleyamma Saju’s case (supra) after referring to the object of the KAA(P)A enactment opined as follows:

The detention in all preve