https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299980 Cases ending in acquittal or on a guilty plea before the detention proposal could not be treated as current material for classifying a person as a known goonda or known rowdy under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, and a prosecution under Section 160 IPC was outside the statutory basis for that classification. The remaining pending cases were still capable of satisfying the statutory definitions, subject to the separate requirement that the alleged conduct affect public order. The Government's rejection of the detenu's representation was held invalid because it was generic and mechanical and failed to deal with the crucial objection that two relied-on cases had already concluded, so the continued preventive detention was vitiated. en-us Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Jan 2022 15:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299980 Cases ending in acquittal or on a guilty plea before the detention proposal could not be treated as current material for classifying a person as a known goonda or known rowdy under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, and a prosecution under Section 160 IPC was outside the statutory basis for that classification. The remaining pending cases were still capable of satisfying the statutory definitions, subject to the separate requirement that the alleged conduct affect public order. The Government's rejection of the detenu's representation was held invalid because it was generic and mechanical and failed to deal with the crucial objection that two relied-on cases had already concluded, so the continued preventive detention was vitiated. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299980