Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
OMANA REVI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 471 2023
Detention - Writ Petition - Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 - Section 3(3) - Court upheld the order of detention citing timely execution and justification based on the history of criminal activities.
Fact of the Case:
A writ petition was filed by the mother of a detenue, challenging the order of detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, alleging delays in government approval and execution of the detention order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was executed on the same day it was passed, and the government approval was timely. The court confirmed that the history of the detenue's criminal involvement justified the detention.
Issues: Whether there was a delay in the execution and approval of the detention order, which would invalidate it under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the timeline of events showed no gap between the last prejudicial act and the detention order, affirming the legality of the detention despite the petitioner's claims.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This writ petition (criminal) was filed challenging an order of detention. Petitioner is the mother of the detenue 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 learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 3 (3) of KAA(P)A and submitted that there was delay in forwarding the order of detention to the Government forthwith, after passing the detention order.
2. We perused the file. Detention order was passed on
6/9/2022. We see that the order has been executed on the same day. The petitioner further argued that there was a delay in considering the order by the Government for its approval. We see that the Government had approved it on 22/9/2022. The proposal was received by the Govt on 12/9/2022. We find that approval was also within time. The detenue is involved in a large number of cases. The number of cases and the nature of offences clearly justify the detention order. The argument that there was delay in passing the detention order after the last prejudicial activity is also legally unsustainable. It is appropriate to refer chronology of events which are as follows:
1. Date of last prejudicial activity :11.04.2022 2. Detenue was arrested on :12.04.2022 3. He was released on bail :23.07.2022 4. SHO viyur police station gave report on :18.08.2022 5. Sponsoring authority gave report on :27.08.2022
6. Order of detention passed by District Magistrate :06.09.2022
7. Submission of proposal to Government :12.09.2022 8. Detention order approved by Government :22.09.2022 9. Date of reference by govt to advisory board :24.09.2022 10. Date of report of advisory board :27.10.2022 11.Date of confirmation of order of detention :07.11.2022
3. The above events clearly indicate that there was no snapping of livelink between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order. We find no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition (criminal) fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
