9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance of Section 3(3) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. 2. Non-furnishing of vital documents to the detenu. 3. Delay in execution of the detention order. 4. Gravity of offences justifying preventive detention. Summary: Non-compliance of Section 3(3) of the Act: The petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent did not report the matter to the Government forthwith as required u/s 3(3) of the Act. However, it was established that the report was made on 29/01/2013, the same date as the issuance of the detention order, thus complying with the statutory requirement. The court found no merit in the contention of non-compliance. Non-furnishing of Vital Documents: The petitioner argued that the detenu was not provided with the report dated 08/01/2013, which was crucial for making an effective representation u/s Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court, referencing the Apex Court's principles, concluded that the report was merely for narration of facts and not grounds for detention. Therefore, its non-supply did not prejudice the detenu's right to make an effective representation. Delay in Execution of the Detention Order: The petitioner claimed that the delay in executing the detention order (issued on 29/01/2013 and executed on 03/05/2013) rendered the detention illegal. The court examined the explanation provided by the 3rd respondent, which detailed efforts to arrest the detenu who evaded arrest by escaping through the river. The court found the explanation satisfactory and held that the delay was justified and did not invalidate the detention order. Gravity of Offences Justifying Preventive Detention: The petitioner contended that the offences were not grave enough to justify preventive detention and that the detaining authority wrongly proceeded as though the detenu was the sole accused. The court clarified that the offences charged against the detenu, including depredation of the environment, were covered under the definition of 'goonda' u/s 2(j) and 'depredator of environment' u/s 2(g) of the Act. The court concluded that the offences were indeed grave, justifying the preventive detention. Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no substance in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner.
|
