Bathula Rajashekhar Goud, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION No.28089 of 2015 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5. 2.
The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under: " to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in opening and continuing a rowdy sheet against the petitioner in Giddaluru Police Station and also calling the petitioner to the police station for no fault of him, is illegal and consequently direct the respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from the register of rowdy sheeters and further direct the respondents not to call and not to interfere with the personal liberty of the petitioner."
3.
The basic grievance of the petitioner is that opening of a rowdy-sheet and continuing the same in the absence of any crimes pending against him, is against the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court and also contrary to the Police Control Order and therefore, the said rowdy-sheet is liable to be quashed. 4.
The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that in all, five crimes have been registered against the petitioner, out of which, four Crimes ended in acquittal and in one case, he was bound over for six months before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Giddaluru vide Crime No.76 of 2003 and the said period is also expired long back.
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 in the absence of any criminal cases pending 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 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. 1 2015(1) ALD 889
2. AIR 1966 SC 1766
3. AIR 1984 SC 1334
4. 1987 (2) ALT 904
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 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.
5. 1997 (6) ALD 583
6. 1998 (3) ALT 55 (D.B.)
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
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 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 criminal cases which are
12. 1999 (5) ALD 155
13. 2000 (1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP)
14. 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP)
ended in acquittal 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 in the absence of any criminal cases pending against him, is in violation of the life and liberty as guaranteed to the petitioner under the provisions of the Constitution of India as 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 of the 3rd respondent in C.No.86/ Gen/ SDPO. M/ 2001, dated 28.03.2001 in opening rowdy-sheet in the name of the petitioner on the file of Giddaluru Police Station 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