JUDGMENT : Mr. K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner is the mother of the detenu detained under the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). Petitioner's son has been detained vide Ext.P1 order passed by the District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram dated 13.8.2011. Ext.P1 order was preceded by Report of the Superintendent of Police dated 28.7.2011. There are six crimes referred to as the basis for the order of detention. They are as follows: (I) Crime No.18/07 of Neyyar Dam Police Station under Section 323, 324 & 34 IPC. The incident allegedly took place on 19.1.2007. The case is said to be charge sheeted and pending trial. It is alleged that the detenu and his associates manhandled the complainant brutally. (ii) Crime No.190/07 of Neyyar Dam Police Station under Section 27 of the Arms Act. We may straightaway say that though they were referred to by the Superintendent of Police, the order of detention reveals that they are not considered by the detaining authority. Therefore, we need refer the other four crimes. They are as follows: (iii) Crime No.27/08 of Neyyar Dam Police Station under Section 452, 427, 323 & 354 of IPC. The incident was that the detenue broke into the house of the complainant with cudgel, abused and assaulted the complainant and her family members and tore her clothes in a manner outraging her modesty on 9.2.2008 at 6 P.M. (iv) Crime No.417/2010 of Neyyardam Police Station under Section 451, 354, 506 (i) & 294 (b) of IPC. The allegation is that the detenue and his associates criminally entered into the observation room of the hospital run by the complainant, abused, pushed and intimidated her in the manner outraging her modesty on 25.11.2010. The case was charge sheeted and pending trial. (v) Crime No.220/2011 of Neyyardam Police Station. In the order of detention it is stated to be under Section 506 (i) & 344 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. We will have to refer this later as much may turn on the said case. (vi) Crime No.368/2011 of Neyyardam Police Station under Section 341 & 324 of IPC. The allegation is that the detenue restrained the complainant, manhandled him and hit his head with stone. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions. (vi) Crime No.368/2011 of Neyyardam Police Station under Section 341 & 324 of IPC. The allegation is that the detenue restrained the complainant, manhandled him and hit his head with stone. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is delay in executing the order of detention, that there were Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings initiated and all that is stated in the order is that security proceedings under Section 107 is under process and no notice or bond has been executed till date. In other words, his contention is that Section 107 proceedings were sufficient to arrest the activities of the detenu. The last point which the learned counsel for the petitioner would urge is as follows: There is clear non-application of mind by the Magistrate. In Crime No.220/2011 the allegation against the detenu was that he and his associate drove the car into a procession conducted in connection with the festival of Siva Temple, Paruthipally and created a horrifying situation in procession by intimidating the people pointing swords on 8.3.2011 at 8.30 P.M. It is stated further that after completing investigation the case was charge sheeted before JFCM Kattakada. He would contend that when the Superintendent of Police submitted Report it is stated that the case is under investigation. It is thereafter that Ext.P1 order is passed on 13.8.2011. By the time the Magistrate would state that the case was charge sheeted. He would point out that there is no date for the charge sheet. More importantly, he would contend that the charge sheet will clearly show that the Investigating Officer has found that no offence is made out under the Arms Act. Yet, the District Magistrate after referring to the charge sheet still proceeds on the basis that the original Report of the Superintendent of Police continues to hold good, that is to say, when the time the Report was given the case was booked also under the Arms Act, but by the time investigation is completed it was revealed that no offence was alleged against the detenu under the Arms Act as it was not made out. Yet, the Magistrate even with the charge sheet revealing absence of any charge against the detenu under the Arms Act still he proceeds as there is a case made out under the Arms Act against the detenu. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is a clear case of non-application of mind to the material before the Magistrate and which is relied upon by him and a copy of which was served on the detenu. He would therefore submit that this will suffice to vitiate the order for transparent non-application of mind. 3. Per contra, though learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions would not dispute the fact that the charge sheet as laid in Crime No.220/2011 does not make out a case under the Arms Act, however, he sought shelter under Section 7 (4) of the Act and he would submit that even assuming that the said case fails there were other three cases with the aid of which the detenu could still be detained as a known rowdy. To the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Section 7 (4)cannot be invoked to the facts of this case. It is not as if Crime No.220/2011 is found to be non-existent. The question really is one relating to non-application of mind to the material before the Magistrate. He would point out that application of mind by detaining authority is sine qua non for a valid order of detention, the minimum that could be expected of the detaining authority. 4. We are of the view that petitioner is justified in impugning the order of detention on the last of the grounds which we have referred to. We are of the view that the order is vitiated by transparent non-application of mind. There are six cases as already noted. Two cases were excluded by the Magistrate. No doubt, as contended by the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions, that would reveal application of mind. However application of mind in respect of one aspect cannot excuse non-application of mind in regard to another vital dimension of the matter. In this case, after excluding two cases, no doubt there remain four cases. Of the same, Crime No.220/2011 was one. As we have noted the allegation was that the detenu and his associate created horrible scene by driving the car and making threats with the aid of swords. In this case, after excluding two cases, no doubt there remain four cases. Of the same, Crime No.220/2011 was one. As we have noted the allegation was that the detenu and his associate created horrible scene by driving the car and making threats with the aid of swords. The Superintendent of Police sought to invoke the Arms Act. When the matter was placed before the detaining authority by the Superintendent of Police, the charge sheet had not been laid. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the charge sheet itself is un-dated as served on him. It is while the matter is pending final report came before the detaining authority we must presume. The detaining authority refers to the charge sheet relating to Crime No.220/2011 in his order. When the detaining authority came by possession of charge sheet the Magistrate can be and should be expected to peruse the contents of the charge sheet as the charge sheet would encompass the findings of the investigating authority and the indictment that is sought by the Investigating Officer. The booking of the detenu under the Arms Act being tentative must make way for the charge sheet and the charge sheet will supersede the initial and tentative invocation of Arms Act. Once the charge sheet shows that investigation revealed that no case is made out under the Arms Act if the Magistrate had even read the charge sheet he could not have possibly stated that the person is charged under the Arms Act. In fact, the Magistrate would specifically say that he is convinced from the detailed scrutiny that the crimes are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as seen from the complaint in Crime No.220/2011. The conclusion of non-application of mind would be further fortified by the further reference to the Arms Act namely that being an offence under the Arms Act it is punishable up to seven years. Therefore it is clear that the Magistrate, while he came by possession of a vital document, the charge sheet in the Crime No.220/2011, was oblivious of its contents apparently by reason of the fact that he has not gone through the said document. The charge against him would become more grave if he has gone through it and he has not understood it. The charge against him would become more grave if he has gone through it and he has not understood it. Whichever way one looks at it the conclusion is inevitable that the Magistrate has not applied his mind to the vital aspect in regard to one of the cases. 5. We are not impressed by the contention advanced by the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions that the case of the respondents can be protected on the basis of Section 7 (4) of the Act. Section 7 (4) of the Act embodies doctrine of severability that is it is borrowed from the provisions of COFEPOSA Act and also the provisions of National Security Act. There were cases where orders of detention came to be interfered with on the basis that some grounds were either non-existent, vague, irrelevant or invalid for any reason. We are of the view that this cannot be characterised as a case where ground is vague or it is invalid or it is irrelevant. At best, argument can be that it can be treated as a non-existent ground. We are of the view that it may not be appropriate to characterise this as a case of non-existent ground. There is indeed a ground otherwise valid under the Act being a Section 2 (t) offence to make him a rowdy and in fact it is referred to in respect of Crime No.220/2011. We cannot say it is a non-existent ground. There is non-application of mind to the relevant aspect about the case. We would think that in such circumstances the case does not fall under Section 7 (4) of the Act. We are of the view that in the matter of deprivation of liberty interpretation sought to be placed by learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions Sri. Abdul Rasheed cannot be countenanced. In the result, we allow the Writ Petition (Criminal) and quash Ext.P1 order of detention and we further direct that the detenue Sri. Ullas, S/o. Sudhakara Panicker who is detained at Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram shall be released forthwith unless his detention is wanted in connection with any other case. Registry will communicate this direction to the concerned prison Authority forthwith.