Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J.

The following questions arise for consideration in this Writ Petition:

i) Whether an offence committed by one of the immediate neighbours in an incident that occurred due to the dispute between them should be omitted from the computation of the number of offences taken into account for deciding whether a person is a known rowdy or not?
ii) Whether the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. initiated against the detenu in this case were sufficient or not for preventing him from committing anti-social activities?

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the detenu on 23.5.2012 as per F.I.R. No.889 of 2012 of Fort Police Station. But, the 2nd respondent has not considered whether such proceedings initiated against the detenu were sufficient or not for preventing him from committing anti-social activities. The records made available by the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor show that proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the detenu on 23.5.2012. The 2nd respondent stated in Ext.P1 order that Final Report in the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. initiated against the detenu has been submitted in the Sub Divisional Magistrate's Court as reported by the 3rd respondent. Also made an observation that the criminal activities of the detenu cannot be prevented by way of proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. in the light of his past history. This is the statement made by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P1 dealing with the proceedings under Section107 of Cr.P.C. initiated against the detenu. A detailed discussion on the basis of the connected records in the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. did not find a place in Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is, therefore, bereft of the required details showing consideration of the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. by the 2nd respondent.

8. The proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. are initiated against a person for preventing him from committing breach of peace or disturbing public tranquillity. In other words, it is intended for keeping peace and public tranquillity. KAA(P)A is also intended to prevent persons from committing anti-social activities. If proceedings initiated under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. are sufficient for preventing a person from committing anti-social activities, the detention order under Section 3 of KAA(P)A is not necessary. Whether the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. are sufficient or not is a question of fact depending upon various factors. In the case of certain persons, the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. may be sufficient for preventing them from committing anti-social activities causing breach of peace or disturbing public tranquillity. In respect of certain other persons, the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. may not be sufficient. One thing is quite certain. Unless the detaining authority specifically addresses the question whether the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. initiated against a person are sufficient or not in the light of the materials concerning those proceedings produced before that authority, the question whether the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. are sufficient or not cannot be decided.

9. In the case on hand, the last prejudicial activity allegedly committed by the detenu was on 6.2.2012. There is no case for the respondents that the detenu has committed anti-social activities after 6.2.2012. No documents also have been produced in order to show that the detenu has continued his anti-social activities by way of committing offences after 6.2.2012. The proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the detenu for the purpose of preventing him from committing breach of peace or disturbing public tranquillity. KAA(P)A is also intended to prevent persons from committing anti-social activities. If the proceedings initiated under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. are sufficient for preventing the detenu from committing anti-social activities, the detention order under Section 3 of KAA(P)A is not necessary. When the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. initiated against the detenu by the police on 23.5.2012 is considered in the light of the fact that the last anti-social activity allegedly committed by the detenu was on 6.2.2012, much prior to the initiation of the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. assume much relevance. The respondents could not supply any material to show that the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. initiated against the detenu were insufficient for preventing him from committing anti-social activities. A mere statement, without applying mind, as done in Ext.P1, is not sufficient for finding that the proceedings initiated against the detenu under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. were not sufficient for preventing him from committing anti-social activities. The 2nd respondent should have considered the sufficiency or insufficiency of the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. initiated against the detenu with the support of relevant materials and necessary discussions in Ext.P1 order. But, he failed to do so. In the facts obtained in this case, we are of the considered view that there was no reason for the 2nd respondent to arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. initiated against the detenu were insufficient for preventing him from committing anti-social activities. Therefore, absence of application of mind on his part is writ large in this case. This, in fact, vitiated the detention order. Hence, it is liable to be quashed.