Kerala High Court
Rosamma vs State Of Kerala on 11 June, 2024
Author: A. Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 488 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ROSAMMA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O BINU K VARGHESE,
KAICHIRA, ELAMPULASSERY P.O, KARIODU, MANNARKAD,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 595
BY ADVS.
M.H.HANIS
P.M.JINIMOL
T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
NANCY MOL P.
ANANDHU P.C.
NEETHU.G.NADH
CIYA E.J.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME AND
VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695 001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678 001
4 THE CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS,
PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, PIN -
682 026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL, CENTRAL JAIL,
VIYYUR, PIN - 670 004
BY ADVS.
W.P.(Crl.)No.488 of 2024
..2..
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28)
K.A. ANAS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.)No.488 of 2024
..3..
JUDGMENT
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This writ petition was filed by the mother of the detenu
namely, Shibin K Varghese. The detenu was involved in the
following five crimes.
Sl.No. Crime No. Police Station Offences
1 141/2023 Mannarkad U/s. 22(b) of NDPS
Act
2 183/2023 Malampuzha U/s. 323 r/w 34 of IPC
3 671/2023 Wadakkanchery U/s. 22(b), 27 A, 29 of
NDPS Act
4 30/2023 Agali Excise U/s.22(b) & 29, 25 &
Range 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS
Act
5 129/2024 Mannarkad U/s.22(c) of NDPS Act
2. The last prejudicial activity was on 07.02.2024. The
detention order was passed on 20.03.2024. The detenu has
been classified as a known gunda and therefore, two offences
would be sufficient to pass order of detention against him.
..4..
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised two
fold contentions:
4. The first one is that the detention authority passed
the order without application of mind as there is no finding in
the detention order that the Narcotic Substances alleged to
have been recovered from the petitioner were for sale. It is
submitted that the substance recovered is only a small
quantity and it is for the purpose of self consumption and
therefore, the activity of the detenu will not vitiate the public
order. It is further submitted that the maximum period of
detention of six months is imposed without any application of
mind.
5. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The first crime registered against him was in the
year 2023 and only 5.01 gms of narcotic substances were
recovered from him. This is categorised as small quantity to
hold that it was for self consumption. But as seen from the
other offences registered against him as three and four, the
narcotic drugs of 42.710 gms, 1.040 gms MDMA and 10 gms
of dried gunja and other narcotic substances were recovered.
..5..
7. It is to be noted that all these crimes were
committed within a span of one year. In the last crime
committed on 07.02.2024, 19.7 gms of MDMA was also
recovered. The nature of the quantity that is recovered is
suspected as a part of sale and it is sufficient for the detention
authority to presume that this was intended for sale. Whether
it was for self consumption or for sale is a matter for
investigation and also a matter for consideration while the case
is being tried by the Criminal Court. The detention matter
invokes jurisdiction of suspicion, if there are relevant materials
on record which would reflect that such quantity of narcotic
substances are stored for the purpose of trade or sale, the
detention authority would be justified in passing such order of
detention.
8. In regard to the second limb of argument that
maximum period of six months have been imposed without
application of mind, we note that all these crimes have been
registered within a span of one year and detenu is only 27
years old. One of the objectives of the preventive detention
order is to reform such a detained person. It is not a measure
..6..
of penalty imposed on such person. Therefore, while
confirming the order, maximum period has been imposed. We
find no reason to interfere with such matter and accordingly,
dismissed.
However, we direct the jail authorities to take the detenu
for De-addiction therapy. The District Legal Services Authority,
Thrissur shall take necessary steps to ensure that De-addiction
therapy is given to the detenu. This order shall be
communicated to the District Legal Services Authority through
Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA).
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
PR
..7..
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 488/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.
DCPKD/13446/2023-S1 DATED 20.03.2024
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
