## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023/10TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WP(CRL.) NO. 954 OF 2023**
## **PETITIONER:**
AMAL MARY.R AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.LIBIN LAWRANCE, LINCY BHAVAN, KARIKKUZHY, KUNDARA, KUNDARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691501 BY ADVS. S.ABHILASH K.SIJU ANJANA KANNATH FATHIMA MOHAN GOPIKA T.G. AHSANA JOMY JOB
## **RESPONDENTS:**
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 3 DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691013 4 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KOLLAM RURAL, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691506
2
_**W.P(Crl)954/2023**_
5 INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KUNDARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691501 6 INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOCHI INFOPARK POLICE STATION, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682042
BY ADV.
SRI.K.A.ANAS-GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
_**W.P(Crl)954/2023**_
3
## J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 1[st] day of November, 2023
## Anu Sivaraman, J.
This Writ Petition (Criminal) is filed by the petitioner, who is the wife of Libin Laurance, who has been placed under detention under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'KAA(P)A') by Exhibit P1 order dated 16.5.2023, which is confirmed by Exhibit P2 order dated 9.8.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there were four cases registered against the detenue, out of which only three cases have been considered by the detaining authority for passing an order of detention. It is stated that out of the three cases considered, two are offences committed by the detenue under the jurisdiction of the 4[th] respondent. However, it is submitted that the third case and the last prejudicial activity alleged against the detenue was a crime allegedly committed under the jurisdiction of the 6[th] respondent, ie., Inspector of Police, Kochi Infopark Police Station. It is therefore contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 4[th] respondent District Police Chief, Kollam could have submitted a report only with regard to the first two crimes committed by the detenue, within his jurisdiction and that without a report from the Commissioner of Police, Kochi City, the 3[rd] respondent could not
_**W.P(Crl)954/2023**_
4
have ordered the detention of the detenue. It is further contended that the lack of proper application of mind and the defects in subjective satisfaction are also borne-out by the report submitted by the 5[th] respondent in as much as the name of the detenue is wrongly shown in the report forwarded by the 5[th] respondent as “Leo Placid” instead of “Libin Laurance”. Further, it is contended that the said report only refers to two offences committed within the jurisdiction of East Kallada Police Station and Kundara Police Station and that the said defects would show that there was no proper application of mind.
2. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State would draw our attention to the wordings of Section 3 of the KAA(P)A. Section 3 reads as follows:
**“3. Power to make orders for detaining Known Goondas and Known Rowdies.** - (1) The Government or an officer authorised under sub-section (2), may, if satisfied on information received from a Police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police with regard to the activities of any Known Goonda or Known Rowdy, that, with a view to prevent such person from committing any anti-social activity within the State of Kerala in any manner, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained.
(2) If having regard to the circumstances prevailing, or likely to prevail in any area, the Government, if satisfied that it is necessary so to do, may, by order in writing, direct that during such period as may be specified in the said order, the District Magistrate having jurisdiction may exercise the powers under sub-section (1) in respect of such persons residing within his jurisdiction or in respect of such persons not so resident who have been indulging in or about to indulge in or abet any anti-social activities within such jurisdiction.
(3) When any order is made under this section by the authorised officer under sub-section (2), he shall forthwith report the fact to the Government and the Director General of Police, Kerala, together with
_**W.P(Crl)954/2023**_
5
a copy of the order and supporting records which, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter and no such order shall remain in force for more than 12 days, excluding public holidays, from the date of detention of such Known Goonda or Known Rowdy, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the Government or by the Secretary, Home Department if generally so authorised in this regard by the Government.”
## 3. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that notifications
have been issued both under Section 3(1) as well as under 3(2) of the KAA(P)A and that the District Magistrates of all districts are authorised to exercise the powers of detaining authority under Sub Section (1) of Section (3) of KAA(P)A as also authorised to exercise the powers for detention of persons either residing within their jurisdiction or who commit offences within their jurisdiction as provided under Section 3(2). It is therefore contended that a combined reading of Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the KAA(P)A would make it sufficiently clear that 3[rd] respondent had the authority to detain the detenue, who was residing within his jurisdiction. It is further contended that all the aspects of the matter including the commission of crimes by the detenue within the jurisdiction of the 4[th] respondent as well as the last prejudicial activity within the jurisdiction of the 6[th] respondent have been specifically referred to in the order of detention and the sponsoring authority has specified the need for detention of the detenue referable to the provisions of Section 3 of the KAA(P)A. Learned Government Pleader would also place reliance on a decision in **Sameena Beevi v. State of Kerala & Others [2014 (4) KHC 695]** to contend that where there is a specific notification provided under
_**W.P(Crl)954/2023**_
6
Section 3(2) of the KAA(P)A as well and the powers have been specifically granted to all District Magistrates in terms of Section 3(2), the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate of the area where the detenue ordinarily resides, is perfectly legal and valid. It is further submitted that the mistakes in the report submitted by the Station House Officer of the Kundara Police Station, which is referred to at page No.62 and 63 of the writ petition, would have no effect since no such defect has been carried over either to the sponsoring authority's report or to the order of detention as discernible from Exhibit P1. It is submitted that all relevant aspects of the matter have been considered by the detaining authority as well as the Government. Therefore, there is no error in the order of detention.
4. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the details of all the crimes have been duly forwarded by the 4[th] respondent to the 3[rd] respondent for consideration, for passing an order under Section 3 of the KAA(P)A. After considering the report of the sponsoring authority, the detaining authority has come to a conclusion that only three of such crimes required to be considered since the wound certificate in the 3[rd] crime was not available for consideration of the same. Thereafter, taking note of the report of the sponsoring authority, the detaining authority has come to a subjective satisfaction that there is material and requirement for placing the detenue under preventive detention in
_**W.P(Crl)954/2023**_
7
terms of Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P)A. In view of the specific provisions of Section 3 as well as the notifications issued, we are of the opinion that the contentions raised by the petitioner that the 3[rd] respondent could have taken note of the 3[rd] crime committed within the jurisdiction of Infopark Police Station, Kochi, only if there is a report by the District Police Chief or the City Police Commissioner of Kochi City, cannot be accepted and is devoid of merits.
In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the detention order does not suffer from any illegality, which invalidates it. The Writ Petition (Criminal) fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE
Sd/C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE
sou.
_**W.P(Crl)954/2023**_
8
## **APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 954/2023**
## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS**
**EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION DATED 16.5.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(RT) NO.2270/ 2023/HOME DATED 9.8.2023 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT**
**EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.3.2023 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT**
