TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt authority and could be put to trial only on being satisfied, on due certification by such authority that he is fit for trial - there is no statutory or public duty in any of the functionaries under KAAPA to consider such a representation, though the Government being the ultimate authority may, in its wisdom, if it desires so, consider that representation and act on it, particularly because under S. 13 of KAAPA, the Government has fairly wide powers in relation to such matters. But, let the Government remember that the Constitution and the laws are the supreme because they form the base cream for governance in terms of the collective will and declaration by We, the People of India . This Writ Petition is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not served, the Writ Petition itself enumerates four criminal cases, which the detaining authority has made the basis of the detention order. We have seen the counter affidavit as well. Those four cases would fall under clause (t) of S. 2 of KAAPA. Therefore, if a person has been 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 S. 2, that person would fall within the definition of 'known-rowdy' under S. 2(p) of KAAPA. All the four enumerated instances as against the second petitioner are different transactions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt would have been satisfied that, in stark realities, the ultimate outcome in those cases would be nothing but end of useless exercise by carrying forward those prosecutions. 4. We think that it is not inappropriate for us to sound a word of caution, here and now. If a person is shown to be repeatedly indulging in different offences and if the prosecutions are, ultimately, permitted to be terminated by the procedure noticed above, we are afraid that we may pave way to an unholy, irregular, improper, illegal, oppressive, submissible and unconstitutional modus operandi by those who would be committing such acts or activities, subverting and deflecting the course of justice. We say this because, this Court is not oblivious to the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts and factors which constitute the ingredients of the offence charged against him. This is in contradistinction to the situation that an offence with which a person is charged may not be looked into, if in the ultimate trial, he is not found guilty of the charge. Therefore, even though a criminal trial case would not go through its further due process in the aforenoted procedure of termination of prosecution before conclusion of trial and verdict, materials would sufficiently be available even in such cases, for the detaining authority or the sponsoring authority to act and consider such facts and materials for the purpose of formulating an opinion, as may be necessary, in relation to preventive detention laws. 7. The plea on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is any statutory or public duty in any of the functionaries under KAAPA to consider such a representation, though the Government being the ultimate authority may, in its wisdom, if it desires so, consider that representation and act on it, particularly because under S. 13 of KAAPA, the Government has fairly wide powers in relation to such matters. But, let the Government remember that the Constitution and the laws are the supreme because they form the base cream for governance in terms of the collective will and declaration by "We, the People of India". In the result, subject to what is stated in the penultimate paragraph regarding the representation stated to be pending before the Government, this Writ Petition is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|