Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 624 (KER)

Manikantan alias Biju v. State of Kerala

2013-07-22

K.T.SANKARAN, M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

body2013
K. T. Sankaran, J. : The Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram passed Ext. P1 order dated 3.4.2013, under Section 15(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as KAAPA), against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a known-goonda. By Ext. P1 order, the petitioner was restrained from entering into Attingal Sub Division for a period of six months. 2. Challenging Ext. P1 order, the petitioner filed Ext. P2 representation before the Advisory Board. Along with Ext. P2 representation, the petitioner produced Annexures 1 to 25. 3. The Advisory Board passed Ext. P3 order dated 25.5.2013 dismissing the original petition which was registered on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner. 4. The Inspector General of Police took into account four crimes registered against the petitioner at Kadakkavoor Police Station (Crime Nos. 366/2012, 400/2012, 475/2012 and 564/2012). The Inspector General of Police arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is a known goonda as defined under Section 2(o) of KAAPA. The Advisory Board noticed that in Crime No.564/2012, the police filed a refer report and, therefore, that crime was excluded from the purview of consideration. The Advisory Board also excluded Crime No.366/2012 from the purview of consideration on the ground that the witnesses to the seizure mahazar (pertaining to seizure of sand) are none other than the police officers who cannot be termed as independent witnesses so as to attract the proviso to Section 2(o) of KAAPA. The Advisory Board relied on the decision in Vinija v. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KLT 110) : (2009 Cri LJ 4555 (Ker)) to arrive at that conclusion. The Advisory Board held that still the order of externment would be valid since the two cases registered against the petitioner are sufficient to hold that he is a known goonda. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P1 order passed by the Inspector General of Police and Ext. P3 order passed by the Advisory Board. 6. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that the view taken in Vinija v. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KLT 110) : (2009 Cri LJ 4555 (Ker)) that the seizure should be in the presence of independent witnesses requires reconsideration. P1 order passed by the Inspector General of Police and Ext. P3 order passed by the Advisory Board. 6. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that the view taken in Vinija v. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KLT 110) : (2009 Cri LJ 4555 (Ker)) that the seizure should be in the presence of independent witnesses requires reconsideration. He submitted that the proviso to clause (o) of Section 2 uses the expression in the presence of witnesses and it does not say in the presence of independent witnesses. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that he is raising this contention in order to support the conclusion arrived at by the Advisory Board, by challenging that part of the order which is against the State. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Advisory Board did not properly consider the contentions put forward by the petitioner and the averments and allegations made in the representation submitted by the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the Advisory Board has got wide powers under Section 15(2) of KAAPA to annul, amend or confirm the order and that is akin to an appellate power. He relied on the decision in Shibu v. State of Kerala ( 2009 (4) KLT 872 ). 8. In Ext. P2 representation submitted by the petitioner before the Advisory Board, the petitioner raised the following among other contentions: 3. In the 1st week of April 2012 the petitioner was summoned by the Dy.S.P. and demanded money from him alleging that he is involved in the illegal trading of sand. 4. About a week thereafter FIR 336/2012 of Kadakkavoor Police Station was registered against one Shibu alleging violation of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of the River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act (hereinafter referred to as the Sand Act). The petitioner was in no way connected with the said Shibu and he was also falsely implicated on account of the illegal interference of the Dy.S.P. 5. Again FIR No.400/2012 of Kadakkavoor Police Station was registered against the petitioner and one Vikraman who was running the petitioner vehicle on rent. Here also the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The petitioner was forced to take bail in both the above cases. Actually the vehicle was taken into the custody when the same was being washed. Again FIR No.400/2012 of Kadakkavoor Police Station was registered against the petitioner and one Vikraman who was running the petitioner vehicle on rent. Here also the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The petitioner was forced to take bail in both the above cases. Actually the vehicle was taken into the custody when the same was being washed. The Dy.S.P. with the aid of two Civil Police Officers by name Hari and Gopan loaded river sand and got registered the case against the driver, Vikraman and the petitioner. 6. On 07.05.2012 when the petitioner was returning home after offering prayers in a local temple, Dy.S.P. chased the petitioner in his private car and intercepted the petitioner. The petitioner and his car were taken into custody and was put in illegal detention from around 6 a.m. till 9 p.m. on that day. After taking the petitioner to the Attingal Police Station he along with his driver took the car at 07.30 a.m. and returned only by 12.30 p.m. Later it was found the car was driven for more than 120 kms. 7. He demanded money from the petitioner which was not acceptable to the petitioner. The petitioner was threatened that spirit or arms will be put inside his car and that he will be booked for serious non-bailable offences. Finally to escape the petitioner agreed to do the needful and he was let off without even registering a petty case against him. 8. Hari and Gopan are close confidents of the Dy.S.P. The petitioner was moving for the release of the vehicle the above said Hari contacted him and asked to meet the Dy.S.P. in person. When the petitioner met the Dy.S.P. he demanded Rs.1 lakh as monthly payment (Masappadi). He threatened the petitioner he will be implicated in serious cases if he did not meet the demand. 9. Thereafter Hari called the petitioner several times on the mobile phone from his mobile phone with number 9447553356 and 8891153452. It is understood that the 1st number is that of his personal phone and 2nd number is in the name of somebody else. This 2nd number is the one which is used by the Dy.S.P. and Hari for their nefarious activities. Hari insisted that the petitioner should give an assurance to the Dy.S.P. for the amount demanded. 10. It is understood that the 1st number is that of his personal phone and 2nd number is in the name of somebody else. This 2nd number is the one which is used by the Dy.S.P. and Hari for their nefarious activities. Hari insisted that the petitioner should give an assurance to the Dy.S.P. for the amount demanded. 10. On 09.05.2012 FIR No.475/2012 of Kadakkavoor Police Station was registered against the petitioner and one Shaibu who was running a tempo on rent. Here also the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The allegation goes to the effect that it was with the connivance of the petitioner the same was done. 11. On 18.05.2012 around 8.45 p.m. the Dy.S.P. called the petitioner from his official mobile phone with number 9497990019 and asked the petitioner about the money and informed him that the Hari will be contacting the petitioner the next day. 12. On 19.5.2012 Hari called the petitioner on his phone on the next day and the petitioner expressed his inability to meet the demand for money. Then he threatened the petitioner that he will have to face the consequences mentioned by the Dy.S.P. earlier. The petitioner is in a very precarious situation. He is not in a position to lead a normal and peaceful nice pitted in the above circumstance the petitioner on 19.05.2012 gave a detailed complaint against the Dy.S.P. and Hari to the Chief Minister and others including the Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Range.... The petitioner also raised a contention in Ext.P2 that on getting information about FIR No.551/12 and 564/12, he filed a complaint on 8.6.2012 to the Chief Minister and others including the Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Range, making a request to entrust the investigation of the said cases to an agency outside the sub division. Those representations were also produced along with Ext.P2. 9. On a careful perusal of the order passed by the Advisory Board, it is seen that the Advisory Board did not consider the aforesaid contentions raised by the petitioner. 10. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 15 of KAAPA read as follows: 15. Power to make orders restricting the movements of certain persons. 9. On a careful perusal of the order passed by the Advisory Board, it is seen that the Advisory Board did not consider the aforesaid contentions raised by the petitioner. 10. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 15 of KAAPA read as follows: 15. Power to make orders restricting the movements of certain persons. (1) The District Magistrate or a Police Officer of and above the rank of Deputy Inspector General having jurisdiction, if satisfied on information received in respect of a known goonda or known rowdy, after having given him an opportunity to be heard by notice served on him or pasted at his ordinary place of residence, if any in Kerala, that he is indulging in or about to indulge in or likely to indulge in anti-social activities and with a view to prevent him from so acting at any place within the jurisdiction of such Magistrate or officer, may make an order, (a) directing that, except insofar as he may be permitted by the conditions made in the order, he shall not visit any such area or place as may be specified in the order, for a period not exceeding one year: (b) requiring him to report his movements within the State, in such manner, at such times, and to such authority or person as may be specified in the order, for a period not exceeding one year: Provided that a copy of the order along with the grounds for issuing such order shall be communicated to the Government through the Director General of Police. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order issued under sub-section (1) may represent before the Advisory Board within fifteen days of the date of service of the order and the Board on receipt of such representation, consider the same, and after enquiring into the facts and circumstances in such manner as it may deem fit, shall within thirty days of the date of receipt of such representation, annul, amend or confirm the order, either in part or in full. 11. In order to attract Section 15(1) of KAAPA, the District Magistrate or a Police Officer of the rank mentioned therein must be satisfied, on information received in respect of a known goonda or known rowdy, that he is indulging in or about to indulge in or likely to indulge in anti-social activities. 11. In order to attract Section 15(1) of KAAPA, the District Magistrate or a Police Officer of the rank mentioned therein must be satisfied, on information received in respect of a known goonda or known rowdy, that he is indulging in or about to indulge in or likely to indulge in anti-social activities. With a view to prevent such a known rowdy or known goonda from so acting at any place within the jurisdiction of such Magistrate or Officer, he may make an order as provided in sub-section (1). Before passing any such order, an opportunity of being heard must be provided to the person concerned. Any person aggrieved by an order issued under sub-section (1) is entitled to make a representation to the Advisory Board. Such a representation should be made within fifteen days of the date of service of the order. Section 15(2) mandates that the Advisory Board, on receipt of such representation shall consider the same and after enquiring into the facts and circumstances in such manner as it may deem fit, shall annul, amend or confirm the order, either in part or in full. Such exercise shall be done within thirty days of the date of receipt of such representation. 12. The power given to the Advisory Board under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of KAAPA is very wide, unlike the power given to the Advisory Board under Section 10 of KAAPA. Under Section 15 (2), the Advisory Board can annul, amend or confirm the order, either in part or in full. The Advisory Board acting under Section 10 of KAAPA can only submit a report containing its opinion as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned. Such report shall be filed before the Government within nine weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned. On receipt of the report of the Advisory Board, the Government may confirm the detention order if the opinion of the Advisory Board is to the effect that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned. On the other hand, if the opinion of the Advisory Board is that there is no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the Government is bound to revoke the detention order and cause the person concerned to be released forthwith. On the other hand, if the opinion of the Advisory Board is that there is no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the Government is bound to revoke the detention order and cause the person concerned to be released forthwith. The procedure provided under Section 10 of KAAPA is in respect of an order of detention under Section 3 of KAAPA. An order under Section 3 can be passed if the Government or the Officer authorised in that behalf is satisfied on information from a Police Officer of the rank mentioned in Section 3 with regard to the activities of a known goonda or known rowdy, that with a view to prevent such person from committing any anti-social activities within the State of Kerala in any manner, it is so necessary to pass an order of detention. If an order of detention is issued under Section 3 by an authorised officer, that order has to be approved by the Government or the Secretary, Home Department within twelve days, as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 3. In the case of an order of detention under Section 3, the Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned, place the matter before the Advisory Board as provided in Section 9 of KAAPA and the Advisory Board has to proceed in the manner provided in Section 10 of KAAPA. 13. The procedure to be followed by the Advisory Board under Section 10 in the matter of an order of detention under Section 3 is different from the procedure to be followed by the Advisory Board under Section 15(2) of KAAPA in the matter of an order under Section 15(1). The power to annul, amend or confirm the order, conferred on the Advisory Board under Section 15(2) of KAAPA, is lacking in the case of an order of detention under Section 3 of KAAPA. Section 15(2) empowers the Advisory Board to make an enquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case in such manner as it may deem fit. The order to be passed by the Advisory Board under sub-section (2) of Section 15 would have finality and it need not be confirmed by any authority. 14. Section 15(2) empowers the Advisory Board to make an enquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case in such manner as it may deem fit. The order to be passed by the Advisory Board under sub-section (2) of Section 15 would have finality and it need not be confirmed by any authority. 14. The scheme of KAAPA would make it clear that in the matter of disposal of a representation under Section 15(2), the Advisory Board exercises a power which is akin to appellate power. It can even amend an order under challenge apart from the power to annul or confirm the order impugned. Moreover, the power to annul, amend or confirm the order can be either in part or in full of the said order. Under Section 15(2), the Advisory Board would have jurisdiction even to alter the period of externment, the area to which the externment relates and the conditions therein. In Shibu v. State of Kerala ( 2009 (4) KLT 872 ), a Division Bench of this Court considered the scope of Section 15(2) of KAAPA and held as follows: 3. Though the right to challenge is couched in the expression representation it is evident that the Advisory Board constituted under S.8 of the KAAPA is obliged to consider such representation in challenge and has the legal competence to annul, amend or confirm the order. In these circumstances, we take the view that though the expression appeal is not employed in S.15(2) of the KAAPA, there is an effective right for the aggrieved to challenge an order of restraint passed under S.15(1), before a duly constituted Advisory Board under S.8 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the KAAPA), under S.15(2) of the KAAPA. ....... 15. In the present case, we are of the view that the Advisory Board should have considered the objections raised by the petitioner in Ext.P2 representation. The Advisory Board has not properly adverted to these aspects. 16. The next question to be considered is whether this Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could set aside the order passed by the Advisory Board and remand the matter to the Advisory Board for fresh consideration. The Advisory Board has not properly adverted to these aspects. 16. The next question to be considered is whether this Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could set aside the order passed by the Advisory Board and remand the matter to the Advisory Board for fresh consideration. In the case of an order of detention under Section 3 of KAAPA, this Court, while disposing of a writ petition challenging the order of detention, would not direct the Advisory Board to consider the matter afresh. Since the procedure to be followed under Section 10 only provides for a report to be made by the Advisory Board containing its opinion, there is no scope for interfering with that opinion. Even when the Advisory Board opines that there are sufficient grounds for detention of the person concerned, nothing prevents the High Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to hold that the order of detention is illegal or the continued detention of the person concerned is illegal. For that purpose, the opinion expressed by the Advisory Board would not be a fetter on the power of the High Court. In the case of an order under Section 15(1), if the Advisory Board passes an order under Section 15(2) of KAAPA, it would be proper for the High Court to set aside the order passed by the Advisory Board and remand the case for fresh disposal by the Advisory Board, if the facts and circumstances of the case warrant such a course being adopted. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the Advisory Board. Accordingly, we set aside Ext.P3 order passed by the Advisory Board and direct the Advisory Board to consider the matter afresh and dispose of the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 18. In the manner in which we dispose of the Writ Petition as above, we do not think it is necessary to consider the submission made by the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution that the decision in Vinija v. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KLT 110) : (2009 Cri LJ 4555 (Ker)) requires reconsideration. 18. In the manner in which we dispose of the Writ Petition as above, we do not think it is necessary to consider the submission made by the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution that the decision in Vinija v. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KLT 110) : (2009 Cri LJ 4555 (Ker)) requires reconsideration. For the same reason, we are also of the view that it is not necessary to consider the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Advisory Board. It would be open to the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the Advisory Board. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding of the Advisory Board that though proceedings were initiated under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner, he was evading service, is not correct. It is submitted that on making an application under the Right to Information Act, Ext.P4 communication was issued by the State Public Information Officer of the Revenue Divisional Office. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be permitted to produce the same before the Advisory Board. It is also submitted that in two criminal cases, which formed the basis for Ext.P1 order of externment, the trial is over and the judgment would be pronounced within a short time. The petitioner seeks permission to produce such documents showing subsequent events also before the Advisory Board. It is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to produce before the Advisory Board the documents referred to above, provided the documents are otherwise admissible. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Order accordingly.