The detaining authority's discretion to determine preventive measures is upheld, and reliance on witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. for detention proceedings is valid.

Headnote:
Detention - KAAPA - [Sections 2(p), 3(1), 7(2), 7(4)] - The court upheld the detention order under KAAPA, confirming that reliance on past activities to determine ‘known rowdy’ status was valid, and discretion of the detaining authority to utilize Sections 107 or 110 Cr.P.C. was appropriate.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the detention of his son under the KAAPA, arguing that appropriate proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. should have been initiated instead of detention under Section 3(1) of KAAPA. The son had a history of criminal activities.
Issues: Whether the detaining authority erred in relying on Section 107 Cr.P.C. for detention instead of considering lesser alternatives, and whether the subjective satisfaction based on witness statements and other documents was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it is within the detaining authority's discretion to decide which preventive measures to take and that evaluating activities under Sections 107 or 110 Cr.P.C. does not invalidate the detention order.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition challenging the detention was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

K.T.Sankaran, J.

Naveen Suresh, son of the petitioner, was detained in execution of Ext.P1 order of detention dated 21.3.2015 issued by the District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'KAAPA'), on the ground that he is a 'known rowdy' as defined in the KAAPA. The order of detention was executed on 2.4.2015. Naveen Suresh is undergoing detention. In the Writ Petition, the order of detention as well as the continued detention are under challenge.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of detention is vitiated on several grounds. We shall discuss hereunder the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. It is stated in the order of detention that proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against the detenu in the year 2014. Even thereafter, the detenu indulged in criminal activities which resulted in the registration of Crime No.1068 of 2014 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station and Crime No.1511 of 2014 of Kattakada Police Station. In the order of detention, the satisfaction of the detaining authority is recorded to the effect that initiation of the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. would not deter the detenu from indulging in criminal activities. The contention of the petitioner is that in the nature of the crimes registered against the detenu, the appropriate proceedings would have been under Section 110 Cr.P.C instead of Section 107 Cr.P.C. Had proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. been taken against the detenu, that would have been sufficient deterrent against the detenu. The detaining authority did not advert to this aspect at all and, therefore, the subjective satisfaction is vitiated.

4. It is apposite to refer to the crimes registered against the detenu while dealing with the above contention. Ten crimes were registered against the detenu during the period 2013-2014, the details of which are shown below:

Sl.No.	Crime No.	Police Station	Sections of offence
	1 914/2013	Thampanoor	S.379 read with S.34 IPC
	2 908/2013	Vanchiyoor	Ss.379, 411 read with S.34 IPC
	3 601/2013	Poojappura	Ss.379, 411 read with S.34 IPC
	4 1247/2013	Thampanoor	Ss.379 and 201 IPC
	5 480/2014	Vanchiyoor	S.379 read with S.34 IPC
	6 295/2014	Museum	S.379 read with S.34 IPC
	7 328/2014	Vattiyoorkkavu	Ss.379, 201 read with S.34 IPC
	8 448/2014	Nemom	S.394 IPC
	9 1511/2014	Kattakada	S.379 read with S.34 IPC
	10 1068/2014	Kanjiramkulam	S.379 read with S.34 IPC

5. The details of the crimes mentioned in the grounds of detention would show that, in many cases, the detenu was indulging mainly in snatching gold chains particularly from women in public road, shop etc. It is also alleged that the detenu and his associates used to travel on motor bike for commission of the crime. It was also found that even the motor bike was a stolen one.

6. It may be true that proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C.

could be initiated against the detenu for keeping good behaviour, since the allegation would show that he is by habit a thief. At the same time, it cannot be said that proceedings could not be initiated against the detenu under Section 107 Cr.P.C., in the facts and circumstances of the case. The narration of the events in the crimes registered against the petitioner would indicate that there are sufficient materials to arrive at a conclusion that the detenu is a person likely to commit any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility. It is for the authority initiating proceedings under Section 107 or Section 110 Cr.P.C. to decide whether proceedings should be initiated against the person concerned either under Section 107 or Section 110 Cr.P.C. It is not a matter for the detaining authority to sit in judgment over the power exercised by the authority initiating proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. and say t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 24369

HIGH COURT OF KERALAK.T.SANKARAN, RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JJJAYALESKHMI – AppellantVersusSTATE OF KERALA – RespondentWP(Crl.) 280 2015

The detaining authority's discretion to determine preventive measures is upheld, and reliance on witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. for detention proceedings is valid.

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.T.SANKARAN, RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JJ
JAYALESKHMI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 280 2015