Bandi Prabhakar, v. The State Of Telangana,
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION No.40412 of 2014 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under: "... Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus and declare the police surveillance and opening of rowdy sheet No.05/14 and history sheet No.40 of 2014 on the petitioner on the file of police station Bellampalli-II (Town), Bellampalli, Adilabad District as illegal and contrary to Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual and violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the opening of rowdy sheet No.05/14 and history sheet No40 of 2014 on the petitioner on the file of Police Station Bellampalli-II (Town), Bellampalli, Adilabad District."
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was figured as accused No.6 in Crime No.71 of 2014 on the file of the Station House Officer, Tallagurijala Police Station, Adilabad District for the offence under Sections 302, 342 and 109 read with Section 149 IPC. Except the said one crime, no other cases are pending against the petitioner, but still Rowdy Sheet No.8 of 2014 and History Sheet No.45 of 2014 on the file of the Tallagurijala Police Station, Adilabad District, have been opened against the petitioner by the 7th respondent. Later, the same were transferred to the 6th respondent police station. The petitioner is not a habitual offender and as per the Standing Order No.601 of the A.P. Police Manual, he cannot be termed as habitual offender and rowdy sheet and history sheet cannot be opened against him.
Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents placed on record the Xerox copy of the particulars of the past arrest and the criminal record of the petitioner. A perusal of the same would indicate that except Crime Nos.71 of 2014 and 49 of 2014 vide S.C.No.88 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Asifabad and C.C.No.119 of 2017, where the petitioner has already acquitted, no other criminal cases are pending against him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision of this Court in CHITLURI SRINIVASA RAO V. SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT1, the continuation of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner is illegal.
The above said issue has been dealt with by this Court and the Apex Court in catena of judgments.
In DHANJI RAM SHARMA V/s. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NORTH DISTRICT, DELHI POLICE2, 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 VIJAY NARAIN SINGH V/s. STATE OF BIHAR3, another three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the expression 1 2015(1) ALD 889
2. A IR 1966 SC 1766
3. A IR 1984 SC 1334
'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 MAJID BABU V/s. GOVERNMENT OF 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 KAMMA BAPUJI V/s. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BRAHMASAMUDRAM5. 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
4. 1987 (2) A LT 904
5. 1997 (6) A LD 583
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 PUTTAGUNTA PASI V/s. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA6 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 KAMMA BAPUJI4 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 SHAIK MAHBOOB V/s. THE COMMISIONER OF POLICE7, GUDIVADA SAI BABA V/s. STATE OF A.P., HOME DEPARTMENT8, P.SATHIYYA NAIDU V/s. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT9 and BEERJEPALLY VENKATESH BABU V/s. STATE OF A.P.10 In MOHAMMED QUADEER V/s. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, HYD.11, the same learned Judge who decided KAMMA BAPUJI4 opined that the A.P.
6. 1998 (3) A LT 55 (D.B.)
7. 1990 (1) A PLJ 363
8. 2002 (3) A LT 391
9. 2011 (2) A LT 61
10. 2014 (3) A LT 264
11. 1999 (3) A LD 60
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 BHASKAR V/s. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WARANGAL12, 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 SUNKARA SATYANARAYANA V/s. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH13, 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
12. 1999 (5) A LD 155
13. 2000 (1) A LD (C rl.) 117 (A P)
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. SATYANARAYANA REDDY V/s. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH14, 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. In the light of the above stated settled proposition of law, it is clear that the opening of a rowdy sheet and history sheet in the name of the petitioner on the basis of his involvement in two criminal cases where he is already acquitted 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 two crimes registered against him. In spite of the same, the respondents appear to have continued the rowdy sheet and the history sheet in his name.
14. 2004 (1) A LD (C rl.) 387 (A P)
In the above circumstances, this Court holds that opening of rowdy sheet and history 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 well as contrary to the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court, as stated supra. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the Rowdy Sheet No.5 of 2014 and History Sheet No.40 of 2014 of Bellampalli II Town Police Station, Bellampalli, Adilabad District opened in the name of the petitioner are hereby quashed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J Date: 13.11.2018.
ES