Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.52 seconds)Section 15 in Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Anita Antony vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2022
11. The next contention of the petitioner is that proceeding
under Section 15(1) of the KAA(P)Act was not at all necessitated in
this case, as a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. had already been
initiated. This Court in Anita Antony v. State of Kerala and
Others [2022 KHC OnLine 455] has held that the relative scope of
the two proceedings is different and independent. Proceedings under
S.107 of the Cr. P.C, is in the nature of security for keeping peace and
public tranquility, and the free movement of such a person is not
curtailed at all. The power of externment under Section 15(1) of the
KAA(P) Act, on the other hand, allows an authorized officer to
restrain an individual, identified as a "known goonda" or
"known-rowdy" under the Act, from entering specified areas. This
order can be issued if, after affording an opportunity of being heard,
the officer is satisfied that the individual is engaging in, about to
engage in, or likely to engage in anti-social activities. The affected
WP(Crl) No. 143/2025 11 2025:KER:35030
person must meet the criteria for a Known goonda or Known rowdy,
and the officer must satisfy himself, objectively and subjectively, that
restrictions are necessary to prevent further anti-social activities as
defined under section 2(a) of the KAAP Act. In other words, Section
107 proceedings under the Cr.P.C. and the provisions under the KAAP
Act operate in different spheres. At the same time, it has to be borne
in mind that in a case where it is possible to prevent the petitioner
from continuing his anti-social activity by methods other than his
preventive detention or externment, the authorities are bound to
adopt those methods rather than depriving his rights under Article 21
of the Constitution of India. It was therefore that this court as well as
the Apex Court have held that in cases where proceedings such as
those under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C are initiated, the authorities
should consider whether, in spite of the initiation of such proceedings
it is necessary to preventively detain or extern the person concerned
and that on such examination if the authorities are satisfied that
detention or externment is necessary, it is open to the authorities to
validly do so.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Stalin.C.V vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2011
In this regard, we are fortified by the decision in Stalin C.V. v.
State of Kerala and others [2011 (1) KHC 852]. Moreover, an
order under Section 15 can be treated only as equivalent to a
condition imposed in a bail order, especially when the same only
curtails the movement of the petitioner. Consequently, we have no
hesitation in holding that the minimal delay in mooting the proposal
and in passing the externment order after the date of the last
prejudicial activity has no serious impact at all, and the same is only
liable to be discarded.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1