JUDGMENT : Alexander Thomas, J. The prayers in the afore captioned W.P.(Crl.), seeking for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus and writ of certiorari, in regard to the challenge made against the order, preventively detaining the detenu in this case, are as follows: “i) set aside Ext.P12 order dated 27-07-2022 No.G.O.(Rt) No.2075/2022/Home issued by the 1st respondent; (ii) declare that the detention of the detenu (Balachandran P.V.) invoking 3(1) of Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 on the basis of Ext.P11 order by the 2nd respondent is illegal; (iii) direct the 4th respondent to release the detenu (Balachandran P.V.); (iv) exempt the petitioner from producing the English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with this writ petition and the detenu further undertakes that he is ready and willing to produce English Translation of Malayalam documents as and when required; (v) award cost to the petitioner; (vi) issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri.M.Sasindran, learned Advocate, instructed by Sri.Satheesan Alakkadan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.A. Anas, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents. 3. The brief of the relevant facts of this case is as follows: The petitioner herein is the brother of the detenu in this case, covered by the impugned detention order at Ext.P11. The 3rd respondent-District Police Chief, has submitted Ext.P10 report dated 06.04.2022 and additional report dated 04.05.2022, recommending to the 2nd respondent-District Collector/District Magistrate, who is the authorised detaining authority, that, in view of the aspects stated in these reports, it is a fit case for the 2nd respondent to issue orders under Sec.3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act [KAAPA], 2007 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short], so as to preventively detain the detenu with a view to prevent him from further committing prejudicial anti-social activities, as understood in Sec.2(a) of the said Act. Pursuant to the said reports of the sponsoring authority, the 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P11 order dated 18.05.2022, ordering under Sec.3(1) of the Act that, the detenu shall be preventively detained, so as to prevent him from further committing prejudicial anti-social activities. Ext.P11 detention order dated 18.05.2022 was duly executed with the arrest of the detenu on 24.05.2022. Pursuant to the said reports of the sponsoring authority, the 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P11 order dated 18.05.2022, ordering under Sec.3(1) of the Act that, the detenu shall be preventively detained, so as to prevent him from further committing prejudicial anti-social activities. Ext.P11 detention order dated 18.05.2022 was duly executed with the arrest of the detenu on 24.05.2022. Further that, the 2nd respondent has forthwith communicated Ext.P11 detention order and all the other relevant materials to the 1st respondent-State Government. The 1st respondent-State Government has issued order dated 02.06.2022, approving Ext.P11 detention order, in terms of Sec.3(3) of the Act, within the mandatory 12 days period, excluding public holidays. Thereafter, the 1st respondent-State Government has made the necessary request, along with the materials, to the statutory Advisory Board, seeking their opinion in the matter, as conceived in Sec.9 of the Act. The statutory Advisory Board, after hearing the detenu, has given their report on 13.07.2022, recommending to the Government, that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu, in terms of Ext.P11 order. Thereafter, the 1st respondent-State Government has issued Ext.P12 G.O.(Rt) No.2075/2022/HOME, dated 27.07.2022, confirming Ext.P11 detention order. 4. In the instant case, the last crime, said to have been committed by the detenu, is in 2021 and the FIR in that regard was registered on 15.03.2022. The time gap between the registration of the last crime (15.03.2022), and Ext.P11 detention order (18.05.2022) is 65 days. The period between the date of Ext.P11 detention order (18.05.2022) and the execution of the detention order (24.05.2022), is seven days. 5. The last crime has been registered on 15.03.2022. He was arrested in that case on 18.03.2022 and was released on bail on 28.04.2022. The 4th respondent-sponsoring Authority, has initially given Ext.P10 report dated 06.04.2022 and an additional report dated 04.05.2022. It is in pursuance thereof that the 2nd respondent detaining authority, has passed Ext.P11 detention order dated 18.05.2022. Taking note of these aspects, it is to be noted that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purposes of detention has not been snapped in this case. Moreover, the petitioner has not raised any contention in that regard. 6. The main contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are two fold. Firstly that, four crimes have been taken into account. Moreover, the petitioner has not raised any contention in that regard. 6. The main contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are two fold. Firstly that, four crimes have been taken into account. Out of which, the first crime, is said to have occurred in the year 2014 and therefore, it is beyond the 7 year period prior to the date of the detention order and hence, could not have been reckoned. Further that, among the remaining three cases, the last crime registered is crime No.232/2022, which is for offences punishable under Sec.354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code [IPC], read with Secs.9 & 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act. The offences under the POCSO Act are not covered by the first limb of Sec.2(t) of the KAAPA, in as much as the said provision only contemplates offences under the enumerated Chapters of the IPC, or any offences under the Arms Act or the Explosives Act. 7. In order to bring the offences under the POCSO Act within the ambit of Sec.2(t), such offences under any other law, for the time being in force, coming under items 1 or 2 of Sec.2(t), must be those which are notified by the Government from time to time. That, offences as per the POCSO Act have not been notified, and cannot be thus reckoned for the purpose of considering as to whether the detenu would fulfill the definition of Sec.2(t). Further that, the KAAPA came into force on 13.12.2006. As on that day, Sec.354 A of the IPC was not in the Statute Book, as the same has been introduced in the IPC only as per a prospective amendment, made effective from 03.02.2013 onwards. Therefore, though the offence, as per Sec.354 A(1), may be, otherwise, included in Chapter XVI of the IPC, since the said offence was not in existence in the Statute Book as on the date of coming into force of KAAPA, 2007, on 13.12.2006, the said offence, as per Sec.354 A, cannot be reckoned for the purpose of consideration as to whether the detenu would fulfill the definition of ‘rowdy’ in terms of Sec.2(t), etc. Hence, all the other three remaining crimes could not have been legally taken into account at all for the purpose of deciding as to whether the detenu will fulfill the definition of ‘known-rowdy’ as per Sec.2(p) read with Sec.2(t) and hence, there is no question of invoking the provisions contained in Sec.3(1) for the preventive detention of the detenu in this case and that, on this short ground, the entire proceedings, at Ext.P11 detention order, as confirmed by Ext.P12 confirmation order, are liable to be interdicted by this Court. 8. The second contention of the petitioner is that the detenu has secured bail in all the cases taken into account and sufficient and strict bail conditions have been introduced in such bail orders granted by the competent criminal courts, as can be seen from Exts.P2, P4, P6 & P8 bail orders. That, the detaining authority has not applied its mind on the crucial and relevant issue as to whether the abovesaid bail conditions are sufficient to deter the detenu from committing further prejudicial activities and whether the extreme draconian measure of preventive detention, in terms of Sec.3(1), is really called for, in the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. The abovesaid contentions have been strongly opposed by Sri.K.A. Anas, learned Public Prosecutor. 10. We need not get into the details of those contentions, taking into account the nature of orders proposed to be passed by this Court in resolving these issues. 11. Now, we will deal with each of these contentions separately. Contention A: The details of the four cases taken into account in the instant case, for the issuance of Ext.P11 detention order, are stated in the said order and have been reiterated in para 7 on pages 4 & 5 of the counter affidavit dated 10.10.2022, filed by the 1st respondent-State Government. 12. It is common ground that the first crime mentioned therein is stated to have occurred in the year 2014. Sec.2(p) of the Act mandates that, in order to attract the definition of ‘known-rowdy’, it should be with reference to acts done within the previous seven years, as calculated from the date of the order imposing any restriction of detention. In the instant case, Ext.P11 detention order has been passed on 18.05.2022. The seven year prior period would be only upto 19.05.2015. 13. In the instant case, Ext.P11 detention order has been passed on 18.05.2022. The seven year prior period would be only upto 19.05.2015. 13. Going by the mandates contained in Sec.2(p), the most crucial and relevant aspect is the date of occurrence of the crime incident and not the date of registration of the crime. In the instant case, it is admitted by the respondents that the first crime incident had occurred in the year 2014, though the crime has been registered only on 13.03.2022. So, indisputably, the date of occurrence of the first crime incident is beyond the seven year period, as contemplated in the first limb of Sec.2(p) of the Act. In other words, the learned counsel for the petitioner is fully right in contending that the first crime, viz., crime No.221/2022 of Payyannur Police Station, said to have occurred in the year 2014, cannot be taken into account. 14. However, it has to be noted that the minimum number of crimes contemplated in Sec.2(p)(iii), for attracting the definition of ‘known-rowdy’, is three crimes. The remaining three crimes have all occurred within the permissible seven year prior period. 15. The remaining three crimes, in its chronological order, are as follows:- “(i) Crime No.233/2022 of Payyannur Police Station registered u/s 354A(1)(i) of IPC & 10 r/w 9(m), 9(n) of POCSO Act:- The case is that on 2016, in Ramanthali Amsom near Kunnikkarakkavu the detenu sexually assaulted a minor girl who was playing in the premises of her home. The detenu was arrested on 18.03.2022. Charge sheet was submitted before Court on 28.03.2022 and he was released on bail subject to conditions on 28.04.2022. The case was pending before the Hon’ble Additional District & Sessions Court, Thalassery at the time of issuance of the detention order”. (ii) Crime No.234/2022 of Payyannur Police Station registered u/s 354A(1)(i) of IPC & 10 r/w 9(m), 9(n) of POCSO Act:- The case is that on 2016, in Ramanthali Amsom near Kunnikkarakkavu the detenu sexually assaulted a minor girl who was playing in the premises of his home. The detenu was arrested on 18.03.2022. Charge sheet was submitted before Court on 28.03.2022 and he was released on bail subject to conditions on 28.04.2022. The case was pending as SC No.327/2022 before the Hon’ble Additional District & Sessions Court, Thalassery at the time of issuance of the detention order”. The detenu was arrested on 18.03.2022. Charge sheet was submitted before Court on 28.03.2022 and he was released on bail subject to conditions on 28.04.2022. The case was pending as SC No.327/2022 before the Hon’ble Additional District & Sessions Court, Thalassery at the time of issuance of the detention order”. (iii) Crime No.232/2022 of Payyannur Police Station registered u/s 354A(1)(i) of IPC & 10 r/w 9(m), 9(n) of POCSO Act:- The case is that on 2021, at the time of lockdown, the detenu sexually assaulted a minor girl who was residing near his house in Ramanthali Amsom near Kunnikkarakkavu. The detenu was arrested on 28.03.2022. Charge sheet was submitted before Court on 28.03.2022 and he was released on bail subject to conditions on 28.04.2022. The case was pending before the Hon’ble Additional District & Sessions Court, Thalassery at the time of issuance of the detention order.” 16. In the instant case, for invoking Sec.3(1), the respondents have projected the case that the detenu would fulfill the definitional parameters of ‘known-rowdy’, as per Sec.2(p)(iii) read with Sec.2(t) of the Act. Sec.2(t) of the Act reads as follows:- “2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) xxx xxxx xxx xxx xxxx xxx (t) "rowdy" means and includes a person who either by himself or as a member of a gang commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of any offences under sections 153A and 153B of Chapter VIII and Chapters XV, XVI, XVII, & XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860), or any offences under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 (Central Act 54 of 1959), or the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 (Central Act 6 of 1908), - (i) punishable with five or more years of imprisonment of any type, or; (ii) with less than five years of imprisonment of any type, except those punishable with less than one year of imprisonment; or (iii) such offences under any other law for the time being in force, coming under item (i) or (ii), as may be notified by the Government, from time to time.” Sec.2(p) of the Act reads as follows:- “2. Definitions. Definitions. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) xxx xxxx xxx xxx xxxx xxx (p) "known rowdy" means any person, who had been, by reason of acts done within the previous seven years as calculated from the date of the order imposing any restriction or detention under this Act,- (i) made guilty, by a competent court at least once for an offence of the nature under item (i) of clause (t) of section 2 or any offence notified as such under the said clause; or (ii) made guilty, by a competent court at least twice for any offence of the nature mentioned under item (ii) of clause (t) of section 2 or any offence notified as such under the said clause; or (iii) found on investigation or enquiry by a competent police officer or other authority, on complaints initiated by persons other than police officers, in three separate instances not forming part of the same transaction to have committed any offence mentioned in clause (t) of section 2: Provided that any offence committed by a person,- (i) by virtue of his involvement as a member of the family or a close relative of the family in an incident which took place by reason of a family dispute or quarrel involving family members of close relatives on either side; or (ii) by virtue of his involvement as a neighbour or as a close relative of the neighbour in an incident which occurred due to a dispute between immediate neighbours; or (iii) by virtue of his involvement as an employee of any establishment in an incident which occurred in connection with a dispute between himself and the establishment with regard to the conditions of service; or (iv) as a member of the student community in a recognised educational institution, by virtue of his involvement, merely by his presence but without any overt act constituting the offence mentioned in clause (t) of section 2 without being involved in any criminal conspiracy facilitating the same, in an incident which occurred due to the general involvement of students of the institution in that particular incident; or (v) as a member of a recognised political party, by virtue of his involvement merely by his presence, but without any overt act constituting the offence mentioned in clause (t) of section 2 without being involved in any criminal conspiracy facilitating the same, in an incident which occurred due to the general involvement of the workers of that party in an agitation or protest or programme organised by the party with prior information given to the police officer or magistrate having jurisdiction; or (vi) by virtue of his involvement in a criminal act committed by him before he had attained the age of eighteen years, shall be omitted from the computation of the number of offences taken into account for deciding whether a person is a known rowdy;” 17. The specific contention raised by the petitioner is that, offences as per the POCSO Act will not come within the ambit of Sec.2(t), inasmuch as the offences, as per the said law (POCSO Act), would not come within the first limb of Sec.2(t), since the first limb contemplates only the offences enumerated in the Chapters mentioned in the IPC or any offences under the Arms Act or the Explosive Substances Act. The POCSO Act does not come within any of these three laws. Hence, it appears that, for bringing the offences as per the POCSO Act, the Government should notify, in terms of Sub-clause (iii) of Sec.2(t), since the POCSO Act is a law other than the other three enumerated enactments. However, the crucial fact of the matter is that, going by the allegations in the FIRs and Final Reports in these cases, the factual ingredients of the offences alleged in the three FIRs in the three cases, viz., those under Secs.9 & 10 of the POCSO Act, would fulfill the ingredients of Sec.354 of the IPC, which comes under Chapter XVI of the IPC. There does not appear to be any serious dispute by the petitioner, regarding the said crucial aspect. Further, Sect.354 of the IPC, included in Chapter XVI of the IPC, was in the Statute Book of the IPC, as on the date of coming into force of the KAAPA, 2007. Therefore, though the offences alleged, as per the POCSO Act, may not be pressed into service, in view of these technical aspects, the substantive ingredients of Sec.354 IPC are fulfilled in this case. Hence, the abovesaid contention of the petitioner is bereft of any merit. 18. The further contention of the petitioner is that the other offences, alleged in all the three other crimes, are those punishable under Sec.354A(1) of the IPC, which was included in the Statute Book only subsequent to the coming into force of the KAAPA. 19. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the said contention is not tenable. It may be true that Sec.354A of the IPC has been introduced subsequently, as an amendment to the IPC, which is much after the coming into force of the KAAPA. But, a reading of Sec.2(t) would make it clear that what is intended to be included thereby would, inter alia, be offences as per Chapter XVI of the IPC. It may be true that Sec.354A of the IPC has been introduced subsequently, as an amendment to the IPC, which is much after the coming into force of the KAAPA. But, a reading of Sec.2(t) would make it clear that what is intended to be included thereby would, inter alia, be offences as per Chapter XVI of the IPC. True that, Sec.354 A has been introduced by an amendment to Chapter XVI of the IPC. Chapter XVI has various sub classes and one such sub class is ‘criminal force and assault’. Sec.349 to Sec.358 would come within the said sub class and at any rate, those offences are included in Chapter XVI. Therefore, what is more relevant and crucial is as to whether the offence that is pressed into service is one, which is included within any of the relevant Chapters of the IPC, as mentioned in the first limb of Sec.2(t). 20. Even otherwise, assuming that the offences, as per Sec.354A, which was introduced as an amendment to the IPC, much after the coming into force of the KAAPA, cannot be taken into account, etc., in view of the ground urged by the petitioner. Still, it has to be noted that the allegations in these FIRs would certainly disclose the offence as per Sec.354 of the IPC, which stands included in Chapter XVI of the IPC, before and after coming into force of the KAAPA. 21. For instance, pages 30 & 31 of the paper book of the W.P. (Crl) is a copy of the FIR, in relation to the last crime. A reading of the pertinent allegations therein would indicate that the detenu/accused had touched the thighs of the minor victim girl in that case. Sec.10 of the IPC defines ‘woman’ so as to mean a female of any age. Therefore, a girl child, who has not completed the majority age of 18 years, would also fulfill the definition of ‘woman’ as per Sec.10 of the IPC. 22. Going by these allegations in the FIR the same would also disclose the ingredients of Sec.354 of the IPC, dealing with assault or criminal force to a woman with the intend to outrage her modesty, etc. So also, the allegations in the FIRs in the other two crimes are to the effect that the detenu/accused had touched the private parts of the minor victim girl concerned. So also, the allegations in the FIRs in the other two crimes are to the effect that the detenu/accused had touched the private parts of the minor victim girl concerned. Therefore, certainly, the said factual allegations would also disclose the ingredients as per Sec.354 of the IPC. 23. So, even if it is assumed that the offences as per Sec.354 A(i) may not have been taken into account, as argued by the petitioner, still, the allegations in those crimes would disclose the ingredients of Sec.354 of the IPC. Further, even if the offence as per the POCSO Act are eschewed, the abovesaid factual allegations discloses that Sec.354 alone may suffice to attract the definitional parameters of Sec.2(t) of the Act. In view of these aspects, we are not in a position to countenance the abovesaid plea of the petitioner. In other words, it is only to be held that the definitional parameters of ‘known-rowdy’, as envisaged in Sec.2(p)(iii) read with Sec.2(t) are attracted in the instant case. The contra contentions of the respondent will stand repelled. Contention B: 24. The next contention is that the efficacy or sufficiency or otherwise of the bail conditions, in respect of the bail orders secured by the detenu, has not been duly taken into account by the detaining authority in the issuance of Ext.P11 detention order. It is specifically argued that the detaining authority has not bestowed its proper consideration to the crucial and relevant fact as to whether the bail conditions mentioned above, would have been sufficient to deter the detenu from committing further prejudicial activities and non-consideration of such vital aspects is fatal. 25. The learned Public Prosecutor has attracted our attention to internal page 4 of Ext.P11 detention order (see the top portion of page 68 of the paper book of the W.P.(Criminal), which reads as follows:- 26. A reading of the said portion of Ext.P11 order would clearly indicate that the detaining authority has bestowed due consideration to the bail conditions governing the case and has found that those bail conditions and even taking a recourse to Sec.107 of the Cr.P.C., will not suffice to deter the detenu from committing further prejudicial activities. So, the 2nd respondent-detaining authority has considered the said crucial aspect. So, the 2nd respondent-detaining authority has considered the said crucial aspect. Sitting in judicial review, it may not be proper for us to assess as to the correctness of the said conclusions arrived at by the detaining authority. The detaining authority has considered certain relevant aspects and has taken the considered view that those bail conditions will not suffice for the reasons stated therein. In other words, the plea of the petitioner, regarding the alleged non-consideration of the sufficiency or otherwise of the bail conditions, also would fail. Hence, we are constrained to overrule the said contention of the petitioner as well. 27. The up-shot of the above discussion is that no valid grounds have been made out in this case for us to exercise the power of judicial review so as to interdict with the decision making process in this case. With these observations and directions, the above writ petition (criminal) will stand dismissed.