Paleti Narayana Swamy S/O.Malkondaiah v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION No.28037 of 2015 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. 2.
The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under: " to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the proceedings in C.No.2/ Rowdy-SDOK/ 15 dt. 26-032015 issued by the 4th respondent and consequential opening of a rowdy sheet vide Sheet No.66 in Ulavapadu Police Station, Prakasam District as illegal, arbitrary exercise of power, contrary to police standing orders and violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 4 and 6 to remove the rowdy sheet forthwith and also direct the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action against the respondents 4, 6 and 8 in abusing their power while opening of a rowdy sheet without any existing circumstances."
3.
The basic grievance of the petitioner is that he is a resident of Ulavapadu and belongs to Scheduled Caste Mala community. He is a graduate and eking out his livelihood by doing agriculture. When the respondents 4 and 6 interfered with his life and liberty without any reason, his wife has filed W.P.No.14517 of 2015 before this Court. In the said writ petition, this Court has ordered notice to the said respondents. Having developed grudge on that, the respondents 4 and 6 have implicated the petitioner and his family members in Crime No.50 of 2015 on 03.05.2015 by using one Mr.G.Balaji, Constable of Ulavapadu police station. It is also the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the registration of the said crime, police of Ulavapadu Police Station have opened a rowdysheet on 27.03.2015 against the petitioner. It is the specific case of
the petitioner that except the said one crime, no other crime was pending against him at the relevant point of time. In fact, in the prior crimes, the petitioner was already acquitted. Since the action of the respondents-police in opening of rowdy-sheet is against the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court and also contrary to the Police Control Order, the said rowdy-sheet is liable to be quashed.
4.
On behalf of respondents 4, 6 and 8, a counter affidavit has been filed. In the said counter, it is stated that in all, five crimes have been registered against the petitioner out of which, four ended in acquittal except Crime No.50 of 2015. It is also mentioned in the counter that the petitioner is in the habit of intimidating people in the locality for no reason and because of fear, nobody is coming forward to report against the highhanded action of the petitioner, apart from other aspects. 5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision of this Court in CHITLURI SRINIVASA RAO v. SUB-DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT1, the continuation of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner is illegal. 6.
The above said issue has been dealt with by this Court and the Apex Court in catena of judgments, which are as under: " In DHA NJI RA M SHA RM A V/ s. SUPERINTENDENT O F PO LIC E, NO RTH DISTRIC T, DELHI PO LIC E2, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the condition precedent for opening a history sheet is that 1 2015(1) ALD 889
2. AIR 1966 SC 1766
such person should be reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of crime. In order to justify opening of a history sheet, the Supreme Court opined that the police officer must have a reasonable belief based on reasonable grounds. In VIJA Y NA RA IN SING H V/ s. STA TE O F BIHA R3, another three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the expression 'habitually' would mean 'repeatedly' or 'persistently' implying a thread of continuity, stringing together similar repetitive acts, and a single act or omission would not characterize an act as 'habitual'.
The Supreme Court was of the opinion that to qualify as a 'habit', a person must have grown accustomed to leading a life of crime, whereby it would be a force of habit, inherent or latent, in an individual with a criminal instinct, with a criminal disposition of mind, that makes him dangerous to society in general. This judgment was rendered in the context of preventive detention but the observations made therein as to the connotations and interpretation of the expression 'habitual' are of relevance.
In M A JID BA BU V/ s. G O VERNM ENT O F A .P.4, a learned Judge of this Court was dealing with opening of a rowdy sheet under Standing Order 742. The learned Judge held that two instances of involvement in criminal cases would not make a person a 'habitual offender' and that at least more than two instances should be present before a person can be described as a habitual offender. This principle was affirmed by another learned Judge of this Court in KA M M A BA PUJI V/ s. STA TIO N HO USE O FFIC ER, BRA HM A SA M UDRA M 5. In this case, the persons in whose name the rowdy sheets were opened were involved in two cases but they were acquitted in both.
It was sought to be contended on behalf of the police authorities that the rowdy sheets were opened during the pendency of the cases and that acquittal therein would be of no consequence thereafter. The learned Judge rejected this contention and held that rowdy sheets could not be opened in a casual and mechanical manner and a person could not be dubbed a 'habitual offender' merely because he was involved in two criminal cases. A Division Bench of this Court in PUTTA G UNTA PA SI V/ s.
C O M M ISSIO NER O F PO LIC E, VIJA YA WA DA 6 confirmed this principle holding that a rowdy sheet could not be opened against an
3. AIR 1984 SC 1334
4. 1987 (2) ALT 904
5. 1997 (6) ALD 583
6. 1998 (3) ALT 55 (D.B.)
individual in a casual and mechanical manner and due care and caution should be taken by the police before characterizing a person as a rowdy. Referring to the earlier case law, the Division Bench expressed agreement with the view of the learned Judge in KA M M A BA PUJI4 that figuring as an accused in two crimes would not be sufficient to categorize a person as a 'habitual offender'. The same principle was reaffirmed in SHA IK M A HBO O B V/ s. THE C O M M ISIO NER O F PO LIC E7, G UDIVA DA SA I BA BA V/ s. STA TE O F A .P., HO M E DEPA RTM ENT8, P.SA THIYYA NA IDU V/ s. SUPERINTENDENT O F PO LIC E, EA ST G O DA VA RI DISTRIC T9 and BEERJEPA LLY VENKA TESH BA BU V/ s. STA TE O F A .P.10 In M O HA M M ED Q UA DEER V/ s. C O M M ISSIO NER O F PO LIC E, HYD.11, the same learned Judge who decided KA M M A BA PUJI4 opined that the A.P.
Police Standing Orders were not statutory in nature and were only a compilation of government orders issued from time to time and they therefore did not invest the police officers with any powers of arrest, detention, investigation of crimes etc., not specifically conferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or other enactments. As regards retention of a rowdy sheet, the learned Judge held that opening of a rowdy sheet against a citizen was undoubtedly fraught with serious consequences and the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution could not be deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The learned Judge therefore observed that the law which authorizes the police to open rowdy sheets and exercise surveillance would have to be very strictly construed.
In PULLA BHA SKA R V/ s. SUPERINTENDENT O F PO LIC E, WA RA NG A L12, another learned Judge of this Court held that once there is a long interval between involvement in different criminal cases, such a person could not be termed a 'habitual offender' within the meaning of Standing Order 742.
In SUNKA RA SA TYA NA RA YA NA V/ s. STA TE O F A NDHRA PRA DESH13, a learned Judge of this Court was concerned with the maintenance of history sheets/ rowdy sheets for considerably long periods of time and held that the same would not only violate the right of privacy but also other fundamental rights of such persons under Articles 14 and 19 of
7. 1990 (1) APLJ 363
8. 2002 (3) ALT 391
9. 2011 (2) ALT 61
10. 2014 (3) ALT 264
11. 1999 (3) ALD 60
12. 1999 (5) ALD 155
13. 2000 (1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP)
the Constitution. The learned Judge was of the opinion that orders for opening or retention of history sheets/ rowdy sheets should be passed under administrative instructions and guidelines and if such orders are challenged, the competent authority has to place the reasons before the Court justifying the opening/ retention of such history sheets/ rowdy sheets. The learned Judge further opined that it would be better for the police officer concerned to record his own reasons for opening/ retention of the history sheets/ rowdy sheets. In B. SA TYA NA RA YA NA REDDY V/ s.
STA TE O F A NDHRA PRA DESH14, a Division Bench of this Court held that the expressions 'habitually commit', 'attempt to commit' and 'abet the commission' of offences indicate the requirement that at least two or more cases have been registered against the person concerned to characterize him as a person who habitually commits, attempts to or abets the commission of offences. The Division Bench held that involvement of a person in a solitary case would not be enough to classify such person as 'habitually' committing offences. The Division Bench therefore held that the solitary instance in which the appellant therein was alleged to be involved in could not constitute the basis to classify him as a rowdy."
7.
In the light of the above stated settled proposition of law, it is clear that the opening of a rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner on the basis of his involvement in a solitary criminal case is not sufficient to term him as habitual offender under Clause-A of Order 601 of the Police Control Order. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is acquitted in the crimes registered against him. In spite of the same, the respondents appear to have continued the rowdy sheet in his name.
8.
In the above circumstances, this Court holds that opening of rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner and continuance of the same thereafter, is in violation of the life and liberty as guaranteed to the petitioner under the provisions of the Constitution of India as
14. 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)
well as contrary to the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court, as stated supra.
9.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in C.No.2/ Rowdy-SDOK/ 15, dated 26.03.2015 issued by the 4th respondent and consequential opening of a rowdy-sheet in the name of the petitioner vide Sheet No.66 on the file of Ulavapadu Police Station, Prakasam District are hereby quashed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J Date:22.11.2018 Tsr