G. Mallikarjuna v. The Government of AP

Order

The petitioner has questioned the action of third and fourth respondents in reopening the rowdy sheet on 4.4.2009 against him as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the active supporter of the Telugu Desam political party. He was falsely implicated in the case registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and the said case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur in SC.No. 234 of 2004 and acquitted him of all the charges under judgment dated

9.2.2007. It is his further case that the rowdy sheet opened earlier against him on 6.11.2004 was closed under proceedings dated 31.12.2008, but however, owing to his alleged involvement in the aforesaid crime, rowdy sheet is again opened on 4.4.2009. It is therefore the grievance of the petitioner that except the aforesaid criminal case which was ended in acquittal on 9.2.2007, he is not involved in any other case. In the counter filed on behalf of the fourth respondent it is stated that the petitioner had involved in Cr.No. 9 of 2002 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and the said case ended in acquittal on 9.2.2007 in S.C.No. 234 of 2004 tired by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. Based on the said involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case, to curtail his unlawful activities, rowdy sheet had been opened on

6.11.2004 against him and due to acquittal in the aforesaid crime, the rowdy sheet was closed under proceedings dated

31.12.2008. It is stated that after closure of the rowdy sheet, the Superintendent of Police, Ananthapur has passed general orders in C.NO.24/D-1/DCRB-ATP/2009, dated 2.4.2009 to all the Sub Divisional Police Officers and Circle Inspector of Police in the Ananthapur District to reopen all the closed rowdy sheets and note their current doings and report compliance thereof to the Circle Inspector, DCRB Ananthapur and pursuant to the said order, rowdy sheet against the petitioner has been reopened. It is further stated that a case in Crime No. 26 of 2009 under Section 107 Cr.P.C. has been registered against the petitioner on 9.4.2009 and the learned Executive Magistrate, Lepakshi has bound over the petitioner for a period of six months for his good behaviour in M.C.No. 13 of 2009 dated 9.4.2009. Perused the case file. Under Standing Order No. 601 of the A. P. Police Manual, the following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 80) may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO: “A. Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbance to public order and security. B. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108 (1) (i) and 110 (e) (g) of Cr.P.C,., C. Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City Police Act or under Section 3, Clause 12, of the A. P. Towns Nuisances Act. D. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks. E. Rowdy sheets for the rowdies residing in one Police Station but are found frequenting the other PSs area, can be maintained at all such Police Stations. F. Persons, who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties or in the habit of collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents. G. Persons who incite instigate communal/caste or political riots. H. Persons detained under the "ap Prevention of Dangerous Activities of bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and land- Grabbers Act, 1986" for a period of 6 months or more. I. Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representatives of the peoples' Act for rigging and carrying away ballot paper Boxes and other polling material.” In Malak Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1981 SC 760 the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the scope and ambit of Rule 23. 4 of the Punjab Police Rules which empowered the Punjab Police to maintain a surveillance register against the persons, who are proclaimed and habitual offenders, previous convicts etc. Dealing with the said provision, the Supreme Court inter alia held:

"ordinarily the names of persons with previous criminal record alone are entered in the Surveillance Register. They must be proclaimed offenders previous convicts or persons who have already been placed on security for good behaviour. In addition, names of persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not may be entered. It is not in the case of this category of persons that there may be occasion for abuse of the power of the police officer to make entries in the surveillance register. But, here the entry can only be made by the order of Superintendent of Police who is prohibited from delegating his authority under rule 23. 5. Further, it is necessary that the Superintendent of Police must entertain a reasonable belief that persons whose names are to be entered in Part II are habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property. While it may not be necessary to supply the grounds of belief to the persons whose names are entered in the Surveillance register it may become necessary in some cases to satisfy the Court when an entry is challenged that there are grounds to entertain such reasonable belief. " In Puttagunta Pasi @ Penta Pasi vs. Commissioner of Police, 1998 (3) ALT 55 a Division bench of this Court, while considering the validity of opening of a rowdy sheet under Police Standing Order 742, inter alia held: ". . . . . . . . . . . it is clear that rowdy sheets cannot be opened against any individual in a casual and mechanical manner. Dubbing a person as an habitual offender and to open a rowdy sheet is not sufficient. On the other hand, due care and caution shall be taken by the police before characterizing a person as a rowdy. The important element that has to be seen in the acts of an offender is whether the acts so committed by a person to disturb public peace and will have a tranquility. " (Emphasis added) tendency In Mohd. Quadeer vs. Commissioner of Police, 1999 (2) ALT 733 a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the police authorities have to satisfy that there are grounds to entertain the reasonable belief about the criminal activities of the offender before opening of a rowdy sheet against him. In Sunkara Satyanarayana vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department, 1999 (6) ALT 249 a learned Single Judge of this Court, after an exhaustive consideration of the case law on the issue, deduced several legal principles and held that opening of history sheet/rowdy sheet can be justified only when it is proved before the court by the State that based on the relevant material the competent police officer has applied his mind with due care and caution, and considered all aspects in the light of the law and then ordered opening of history sheet/rowdy sheet or its continuation or retention. From the aforesaid legal principles, it is clear that habitual offender is a person who habitually commits, attempts to commit or abets the commission of offence involving breach of peace. A single act of omission cannot therefore be characterized as a habitual offender and tendency to repeat the acts or omissions of the same class or kind, if the acts or omissions in question are not of the same kind or even if they are of the same kind when they are committed with a long interval of time between them they cannot be treated as habitual offender. Applying the aforesaid legal principles to the facts of the present case, it may be noticed that on involvement of the petitioner in crime No. 9 of 2002, rowdy sheet was opened against him on 6.11.2004 and on his acquittal from the aforesaid case, the rowdy sheet was closed on 31.12.2008. It appears that thereafter the petitioner is not involved in any other case. In as much as no criminal case is pending against the petitioner as of now and he is not involved in any incidents that could cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the police that he may cause breach of peace and tranquility in the area, I do not find any justification in reopening and continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed and the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner on 4.4.2009 is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 1st July, 2011. Msnro