{"id":257163,"date":"2008-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008"},"modified":"2014-12-19T19:47:33","modified_gmt":"2014-12-19T14:17:33","slug":"safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Safiya vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Safiya vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(Crl.).No. 377 of 2008(S)\n\n\n1. SAFIYA, AGED 49 YEARS, S\/O.UBAID,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT\n\n3. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON,\n\n4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJIT\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :12\/12\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                                                             \"C.R\"\n\n               KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ.\n                -----------------------------------------\n                     W.P(Crl.)No.377 of 2008-S\n                -----------------------------------------\n           Dated this the 12 day of December, 2008\n                                th\n\n\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Kurian Joseph,J.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority on perusing<\/p>\n
the report of the sponsoring authority and also the materials<\/p>\n
forwarded by the Superintendent of Police is the sine qua non for<\/p>\n
preventive detention under the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social<\/p>\n
Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.    Under Section 3 of the Act the<\/p>\n
District Magistrate passes the order of detention after entering the<\/p>\n
subjective satisfaction on the basis of the information received from<\/p>\n
the police officer with regard to the activities of any Known Goonda or<\/p>\n
Known Rowdy, with a view to preventing such person from<\/p>\n
committing any anti-social activity within the State of Kerala.    The<\/p>\n
crucial question is whether in a situation of the investigating officer<\/p>\n
having filed final report under Section 173(2)<\/a> of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure should the District Magistrate scrutinize the records leading<\/p>\n
to the final report under Section 173(2)<\/a> of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.377 of 2008
\n                                    -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
               2, The Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,<\/p>\n
2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is intended to provide for the<\/p>\n
effective prevention and control of certain kind of anti-social activities<\/p>\n
in the State of Kerala. Anti-social activity has been generally defined<\/p>\n
to mean any conduct causing (likely to cause also) directly or<\/p>\n
indirectly, any feeling of insecurity, danger or fear among the general<\/p>\n
public or any section thereof, or any danger to safety of individuals,<\/p>\n
safety of public, public health or the ecological system or any loss or<\/p>\n
damage to public exchequer or to any public or private property.<\/p>\n
Bootlegger, counterfeiter, depredator of environment, digital data and<\/p>\n
copyright pirate, drug offender, hawala racketeer, immoral traffic<\/p>\n
offender, loan shark, property grabber are also roped in the definition<\/p>\n
of persons indulging in anti-social activity. Known Goonda is defined<\/p>\n
under Section 2(o) of the Act and Known Rowdy is defined under<\/p>\n
Section 2(p) of the Act which read as follows:-<\/p>\n
      “2(o)    `Known Goonda’ means a goonda who had been,
\n               for acts done within the previous seven years as
\n               calculated from the date of the order imposing
\n               any restriction or detention under this Act, –<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
                (i)   found guilty, by a competent Court or
\n                      authority at least once for an offence
\n                      within the meaning of the term `goonda’
\n                      as defined in clause (j) of Section 2<\/a>, or<\/p>\n
                (ii)  found in any investigation or enquiry by a<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.377 of 2008
\n                                   -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                     competent police officer, authority or
\n                     competent Court, on complaints initiated
\n                     by persons other than police officers, in
\n                     two separate instances not forming part of
\n                     the same transaction, to have committed
\n                     any act within the meaning of the term
\n                     `goonda’ as defined in clause (j) of Section
\n                     2<\/a>;\n<\/p>\n
                     Provided that an offence in respect of
\n                     which a report was filed by a Police Officer
\n                     before a lawful authority consequent to
\n                     the seizure, in the presence of witnesses,
\n                     of alcohol, spirit, counterfeit notes, sand,
\n                     forest     produce,    articles,    vilolating
\n                     copyright, narcotic drugs, psychotropic
\n                     substances, or currency involved in hawala
\n                     racketeering      may   be    included     for
\n                     consideration     though  the    report   had
\n                     resulted from an action initiated by a
\n                     police officer.\n<\/p>\n
                     Explanation. – An instance of an offence
\n                     involving a person, which satisfies the
\n                     conditions specified in the definition of
\n                     known rowdy referred to in clause (p) of
\n                     Section    2<\/a>   can   also  be    taken    into
\n                     consideration as an instance, along with
\n                     other cases, for deciding whether the
\n                     person is a known goonda or not.\n<\/p>\n
     (p)      `Known Rowdy’ means any person, who had
\n              been, by reason of acts done within the previous
\n              seven years as calculated from the date of the
\n              order imposing any restriction or detention under
\n              this Act; –\n<\/p>\n
               (i)    made guilty, by a competent Court at
\n                      least once for an offence of the nature
\n                      under item (i) of clause (t) of Section 2<\/a> or
\n                      any offence notified as such under the
\n                      said clause; or<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.377 of 2008
\n                                  -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
               (ii)   made guilty, by a competent Court at
\n                      least twice for any offence of the nature
\n                      under item (ii) of clause (t) of Section 2<\/a> or
\n                      any offence notified as such under the
\n                      said clause; or<\/p>\n
               (iii)  found, on investigation or enquiry by a
\n                      competent     police   officer    or   other
\n                      authority, on complaints initiated by
\n                      persons other than police officers, in three
\n                      separate instances not forming part of the
\n                      same transaction to have committed any
\n                      offence mentioned in clause (t) of Section
\n                      2.<\/span><\/p>\n
              Provided that any offence committed by a
\n              person:-\n<\/p>\n
              (i) By virtue of his involvement as a member of
\n                        the family or a close relative of the
\n                        family, in an incident which took place
\n                        by a reason of a family dispute or
\n                        quarrel involving family members of
\n                        close relatives on either side; or<\/p>\n
              (ii)      By virtue of his involvement as a
\n                        neighbour or as a close relative of the
\n                        neighbour in an incident which occurred
\n                        due to a dispute between immediate
\n                        neighbours; or<\/p>\n
              (iii)     By virtue of his involvement as a
\n                        employee of any establishment in an
\n                        incident which occurred in connection
\n                        with a dispute between himself and the
\n                        establishment    with    regard   to   the
\n                        conditions of service; or<\/p>\n
              (iv)      As a member of the student community
\n                        in a recognized educational institution,
\n                        by virtue of his involvement, merely by
\n                        his presence but without any overt act
\n                        constituting the offence mentioned in<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.377 of 2008
\n                                   -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                        clause (t) of Section 2<\/a> without being
\n                        involved in any criminal conspiracy
\n                        facilitating the same, in an incident
\n                        which occurred due to the general
\n                        involvement      of   students     of   the
\n                        institution in that particular incident; or<\/p>\n
              (v)       As a member of a recognized political
\n                        party, by virtue of his involvement
\n                        merely     by his presence, but without
\n                        any overt act constituting the offence
\n                        mentioned in clause (t) of Section 2<\/a>
\n                        without being involved in any criminal
\n                        conspiracy facilitating the same in an
\n                        incident which occurred due to the
\n                        general involvement of the workers of
\n                        that party in an agitation or protest or
\n                        programme organized by the party with
\n                        prior information given to the police
\n                        officer or Magistrate having jurisdiction;<\/p>\n
                        or<\/p>\n
              (vi)      by virtue of his involvement in a
\n                        criminal act committed by him before
\n                        he had attained the age of 18 years;\n<\/p>\n
              shall be omitted from the computation of the
\n              number of offences taken into account for
\n              deciding whether the person is a known rowdy”<\/p>\n
Section 3<\/a> empowers the Government or the authorized officer to<\/p>\n
preventively detain known goondas and known rowdies.                The<\/p>\n
provision reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
               “3.   Power to make orders detaining Known
\n               Goondas and Known Rowdies.– (1)                 The
\n               Government or an officer authorised under sub-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
               section (2) may, if satisfied on information
\n               received from a Police Officer not below the rank
\n               of a Superintendent of Police with regard to the<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.377 of 2008
\n                                   -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
               activities of any Known Goonda or Known
\n               Rowdy, that with a view to preventing such
\n               person from committing any anti-social activity
\n               within the State of Kerala in any manner, it is
\n               necessary so to do, make an order directing that
\n               such person be detained.\n<\/p>\n
               (2)     If having regard to the circumstances
\n               prevailing, or likely to prevail in any area, the
\n               Government, if satisfied that it is necessary so
\n               to do, may, by order in writing, direct that
\n               during such period as may be specified in the
\n               said order, the District Magistrate having
\n               jurisdiction may exercise the powers under sub-
\n               section (1) in respect of such persons residing
\n               within his jurisdiction or in respect of such
\n               persons not so resident who have been
\n               indulging in or about to indulge in or abet any
\n               anti-social activities within such jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
                (3) When any order is made under this section
\n                by the authorised officer under sub-section (2),
\n                he shall forthwith report the fact to the
\n                Government and the Director General of Police,
\n                Kerala together with a copy of the order and
\n                supporting records which, in his opinion, have a
\n                bearing on the matter and no such order shall
\n                remain in force for more than 12 days,
\n                excluding public holidays, from the date of
\n                detention of such Known Goonda or Known
\n                Rowdy, unless, in the mean time, it has been
\n                approved, by the Government or by the
\n                Secretary, Home Department if generally so
\n                authorised in this regard by the Government.”<\/p>\n
        3. Law is now well settled that the District Magistrate should<\/p>\n
be  satisfied  on   perusing   the     information  furnished   by the<\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police or an officer not below the rank of the<\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police and on the materials forwarded along with<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.377 of 2008
\n                                   -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
the report that such person is to be detained so as to prevent and<\/p>\n
control his anti-social activities. In Elizabeth George v. State of<\/p>\n
Kerala<\/a>, 2008 (4) KLT 425 it has been held that a final report as<\/p>\n
envisaged under Section 173(2)<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure is<\/p>\n
not essential for an action under Section 3 of the Act. Even though<\/p>\n
investigations are pending against the persons who are accused in<\/p>\n
various crimes, and though such investigations are not completed for<\/p>\n
various reasons, the detaining authority is free to examine the matter<\/p>\n
with reference to the report and the materials in order to arrive at a<\/p>\n
subjective satisfaction, even in the absence of a final report.       In<\/p>\n
situations where the investigating officer has filed a final report under<\/p>\n
Section 173(2)<\/a> of the act, in common parlance known as having filed<\/p>\n
a police charge, can the District Magistrate or should the District<\/p>\n
Magistrate go beyond the final report — finding — of the investigating<\/p>\n
officer and enter the subjective satisfaction while exercising the<\/p>\n
power for detaining a person under preventive detention? Under the<\/p>\n
scheme of the Act a known rowdy is a person, who is involved in the<\/p>\n
defined circumstances within a previous period of seven years<\/p>\n
calculated from the date of the order under Section 3 of the Act. The<\/p>\n
defined circumstances are, the person (1) made guilty by a<\/p>\n
competent court, at least once, for an offence punishable with five or<\/p>\n
more years of imprisonment at a time, (2) made guilty by a<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.377 of 2008
\n                                  -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
competent court at least twice for any offence punishable less than<\/p>\n
five years of imprisonment at any time excluding those punishments<\/p>\n
with less than one year of imprisonment; and (3) who is found on<\/p>\n
investigation or enquiry by a competent police officer or other<\/p>\n
authority on complaints initiated by persons other than police officers,<\/p>\n
in three separate instances not forming part of the same transaction<\/p>\n
to have committed any offence mentioned under the definition of the<\/p>\n
word `Rowdy’ as appearing under Section 2(t) of the Act. Known<\/p>\n
goonda is a person who is, within a period of previous seven years<\/p>\n
calculated from the date of the order of detention, found guilty by a<\/p>\n
competent court or authority at least once for an offence within the<\/p>\n
meaning of the word `Goonda’ as defined under Section 2(j) of the<\/p>\n
Act or who is found on any investigation or enquiry by a competent<\/p>\n
police officer or authority or competent court on complaints initiated<\/p>\n
by persons other than police officers in two separate instances not<\/p>\n
forming part of the same transaction, to have committed any act<\/p>\n
within the meaning of the term `goonda’ as defined in clause (j) of<\/p>\n
section 2<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
        4. The process leading to a final report by a police officer<\/p>\n
under section 173<\/a> (2) starts with Section 154<\/a> of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure, 1973      (Chapter XXII).    After the detailed procedure<\/p>\n
prescribed under the Chapter, the Police files a final report under<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.377 of 2008
\n                                    -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 173(2)<\/a>.      To the extent relevant Section 173<\/a> reads as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n
         “173.     Report of police officer on completion of
\n                investigation.–(1)     Every investigation under
\n                this  Chapter    shall   be   completed    without
\n                unnecessary delay.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in
\n                charge of the police station shall forward to a
\n                Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the
\n                offence on a police report, a report in the form
\n                prescribed by the State Government, stating–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (a)    the names of the parties;\n                (b)    the nature of the information;\n                (c)    the names of the persons who appear to\n<\/pre>\n
                       be acquainted with the circumstances of
\n                       the case;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (d)    whether any offence appears to have
\n                       been committed and, if so, by whom;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (e)    whether the accused has been arrested;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (f)    whether he has been released on his
\n                       bond and, if so, whether with or without
\n                       sureties;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (g)    whether he has been forwarded in
\n                       custody under section 170<\/a>.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in
\n                such manner as may be prescribed by the State
\n                Government, the action taken by him, to the
\n                person, if any whom the information relating to
\n                the commission of the offence was first given.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is clear from the provision that the report shall contain an inference<\/p>\n
by the police officer as to whether any offence appears to have been<\/p>\n
committed, and if so, by whom. It is this inference by the police<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.377 of 2008
\n                                    -:10:-<\/span><\/p>\n
officer that is referred to as the finding under section 2(o)(ii) of the<\/p>\n
Act in defining a known goonda and under section 2(p)(iii) of the Act<\/p>\n
while defining a known rowdy.         Once the investigating officer has<\/p>\n
come to a conclusion that the accused person has committed an<\/p>\n
offence referred to in clause (j) or clause (t) of Section 2<\/a> as the case<\/p>\n
may be and when that finding (police report) is forwarded along with<\/p>\n
the information by the police officer not below the rank of the<\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police to the detaining authority under the Act, the<\/p>\n
detaining authority cannot look into the sufficiency or otherwise of the<\/p>\n
materials leading to the finding by the police officer regarding the<\/p>\n
commission of the offence. That is within the exclusive jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
the criminal court.    The detaining authority cannot and shall not<\/p>\n
appreciate the materials leading to the police report and come to a<\/p>\n
different finding or comment on the finding as to whether on the<\/p>\n
materials thus made available by the police officer a report under<\/p>\n
Section 173(2)(i)(d)<\/a> regarding the commission of offence could have<\/p>\n
been made or not. As held by the Supreme Court in Union of India<\/p>\n
v. Paul Manickam<\/a>, AIR 2003 SC 4622 “In case of preventive<\/p>\n
detention no offence is proved, nor any charge is formulated and the<\/p>\n
justification of such detention is suspicion or reasonability and there is<\/p>\n
no criminal conviction which can only be warranted by legal evidence”<\/p>\n
(para 14).    Thus if the detaining authority cannot go beyond the<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.377 of 2008
\n                                  -:11:-<\/span><\/p>\n
finding of the investigating officer, it is not necessary for the<\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police to furnish the materials leading to the police<\/p>\n
report to the detaining authority in a situation of Section 173(2)<\/a><\/p>\n
report. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is to be<\/p>\n
made based on the information furnished by the police officer not<\/p>\n
below the rank of Superintendent of Police which includes the finding<\/p>\n
under Section 173<\/a> (2)(i)(d) of the Code<\/a> of Criminal Procedure. Of<\/p>\n
course, such finding by the investigating officer cannot automatically<\/p>\n
lead to an order for preventive detention. The findings are only one<\/p>\n
of the materials furnished along with the information by the police<\/p>\n
officer not below the rank of the Superintendent of Police. On perusal<\/p>\n
of the report and the findings, the detaining authority has to enter the<\/p>\n
satisfaction that such a person is to be preventively detained with a<\/p>\n
view to prevent him from committing any anti-social activity within<\/p>\n
the State of Kerala.\n<\/p>\n
        5. Therefore in circumstances where the detaining authority<\/p>\n
has furnished the police report under section 173(2)(i)(d)<\/a> of the Code<\/p>\n
of Criminal Procedure, the competent officer need not furnish<\/p>\n
materials leading to the finding of the investigating officer to the<\/p>\n
detaining authority since the detaining authority cannot make a<\/p>\n
different assessment as to the sufficiency of the materials leading to<\/p>\n
the finding in the report. The satisfaction of the detaining authority<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.377 of 2008
\n                                 -:12:-<\/span><\/p>\n
need only be based on the final report and the further information<\/p>\n
furnished by the police officer not below the rank of the<\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police regarding the need for preventive detention<\/p>\n
under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        6. Now coming to the facts of the case, Ext.P1 is the order of<\/p>\n
detention passed by the District Magistrate, Thrissur. The order is<\/p>\n
dated 8-7-2008. The detenu is the son of the petitioner. It is seen<\/p>\n
from the report that the following materials have been perused by the<\/p>\n
District Magistrate along with the report of the Superintendent of<\/p>\n
Police, Thrissur:-\n<\/p>\n
        (a)      Crime No.492\/04 of Chavakkad Police Station
\n                 u\/s.143, 147, 148, 427, 447, 307, 149 IPC<\/a> is
\n                 on an offence committed by him on 31-10-
\n                 2004. The case is that the detenu and his
\n                 accomplices, trespassed, attacked with deadly
\n                 weapons and caused grievous injuries to the
\n                 complainants and his brothers and damaged
\n                 an autorickshaw. The case is now under trial
\n                 as SC No.126\/08 in the Additional Sessions
\n                 Court, Thrissur.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (b)      Crime   No.76\/2005    of   Chavakkad   Police
\n                 Station u\/s.323, 324, 427, 308, 34 IPC<\/a> is an
\n                 offence committed by him on 10-02-2005.
\n                 The case is that the detenu and his
\n                 accomplices attacked the complainant with
\n                 deadly weapons and caused grievous injuries
\n                 and damaged an autorickshaw. The case is
\n                 now under trial as SC No.211\/2008 in Addl.
\n                 Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
        (c)      Cr.No.739\/05 of Chavakkad Police Station
\n                 u\/s.126, 308, 34 IPC<\/a> and section 27 of Arms<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.377 of 2008
\n                                 -:13:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                Act is an offence committed by him on 14-11-
\n                2005. The case is that the detenu and his
\n                accomplices    attacked   the    complainant’s
\n                brother with deadly weapons and injured him
\n                grievously.   The case is under trial as SC
\n                No.883\/07 in Additional Assistant Sessions
\n                Court, Thrissur.\n<\/p>\n
        (d)     Cr.No.235\/06 of Chavakkad Police Station
\n                u\/s.436, 427, 34 IPC<\/a> is an offence committed
\n                by him on 17-4-2006. The case is that the
\n                detenu and his accomplices, due to previous
\n                enmity,   burnt    down   the    complainant’s
\n                thatched house along with Rs.2 lakhs worth of
\n                fish boxes stored in the house. The case has
\n                been charge sheeted in Judicial First Class
\n                Magistrate, Chavakkad on 27-12-2007.<\/p>\n
        (e)     Cr.No.272\/07 of Chavakkad Police Station
\n                u\/s.143, 147, 148, 452, 506(ii), 427, 149 IPC<\/a>
\n                is an offence committed by him on 29-4-\n<\/p>\n
                2007. The case is that the detenu and his
\n                accomplices trespassed into the complainant’s
\n                house and destroyed the windowpanes and
\n                utensils worth Rs.25,000\/-. The case is under
\n                trial  in  Judicial  First Class    Magistrate,
\n                Chavakkad as CC No.1436\/07.”\n<\/p>\n
\nAll the above five cases are pending trial before the criminal court.<\/p>\n
All the alleged offences have been committed within the period of<\/p>\n
seven years. In all the above five cases the police reports have been<\/p>\n
perused by the detaining authority. The contention of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner is that the detaining authority was not<\/p>\n
furnished with materials leading to the final report of the police<\/p>\n
officer. As already held by us, once a final report on the finding of<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.377 of 2008
\n                                    -:14:-<\/span><\/p>\n
commission of the offence referred to under the Act is given to the<\/p>\n
detaining authority, no further materials are necessary.        The only<\/p>\n
further information is as to whether, in the background also of such<\/p>\n
findings, a person is to be detained for the effective prevention and<\/p>\n
control of the anti-social activities. In that regard it is seen from the<\/p>\n
impugned order as well as the counter affidavit that the background<\/p>\n
of the person has been assessed with regard to his involvement in<\/p>\n
other cases also and in the light of the report of the Superintendent<\/p>\n
of Police regarding the need for preventive detention under the Act.<\/p>\n
It is seen that the detenu had made his representation before the<\/p>\n
Government and that the advisory board has also considered his<\/p>\n
case.   Since all the procedural formalities have thus been duly<\/p>\n
complied with, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is<\/p>\n
accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                      (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                      (K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE)
\nahg.\n<\/p>\n
  KURIAN JOSEPH &
\n  K.T.SANKARAN, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
—————————\n<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.377 of 2008\n<\/p>\n
—————————-\n<\/p>\n
\n
       JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  12th December 2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Safiya vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(Crl.).No. 377 of 2008(S) 1. SAFIYA, AGED 49 YEARS, S\/O.UBAID, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, … Respondent 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON, 4. THE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-257163","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSafiya vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Safiya vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-19T14:17:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Safiya vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-19T14:17:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3288,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Safiya vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-19T14:17:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Safiya vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Safiya vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Safiya vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-19T14:17:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Safiya vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-19T14:17:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008"},"wordCount":3288,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008","name":"Safiya vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-19T14:17:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safiya-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Safiya vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257163","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=257163"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257163\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257163"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257163"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257163"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}