A Gopala Krishna Chinna Gopaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3363 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                  WRIT PETITION No.840 OF 2021

ORDER:-

        This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is filed seeking writ of mandamus, declaring the action of

the   respondents     in   continuing    Rowdy    Sheet    No.168    of

Mangalagiri Rural Police Station against the petitioner, as

illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Police Standing Orders and

consequently sought direction to the respondents to close the

Rowdy Sheet No.168 opened against the petitioner and to

remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy sheet/suspect

sheet board of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station.

2. The facts of the writ petition lies in a narrow compass and

may be stated as follows:-

The petitioner claims to be an agricultural cooli by profession

and that he is a man of good character with reputation in the

vicinity where he has been residing. It is stated by him that he

was not involved in any unlawful activities. While so, on

01.01.2013 a case was registered against him along with others in

Mangalagiri Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under

Sections 307, 326, 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for

short "I.P.C.") on a report lodged by one Kurra Srinivasa Rao

alleging that he and other five persons assaulted him on 01-01-

2013. After charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable

under Sections 307, 326, 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C., the trial took place

and he was initially convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 307 of I.P.C. and for other offences in S.C.No.342 of 2014

on the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Mangalagiri

and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period

of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default, to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

3. Therefore, a Rowdy Sheet No.168 was opened against the

petitioner after registration of the above crime and same is

continuing till now. The petitioner states that he has preferred

an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2015 on the file of

learned Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur against the said

judgment of conviction. The said appeal was partly allowed

setting aside the conviction and sentence against him and other

accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of

I.P.C., but he was found guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- along with other accused.

4. He states that the police are still continuing the Rowdy

Sheet against him even after his acquittal for the offence

punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. and said continuation of

Rowdy Sheet against him is not legally valid. It is pleaded that

as per Standing Order No.742 of Police Standing Orders, that to

include a name of a person in a Rowdy Sheet, he shall be a

habitual offender and he must be a person who habitually

commits or abets the commission of offences involving breach of

peace and as no such material is available against the petitioner

to show that he is a habitual offender or that he habitually

involved in commission of offences relating to breach of peace

and public tranquility, the rowdy sheet cannot be continued

against him and shall be closed. However, as the police are still

continuing the said rowdy sheet, he sought for the aforesaid

reliefs in the writ petition.

5. 4th respondent filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the

respondents. It is stated that a case in Crime No.1 of 2013 was

registered against the petitioner along with other accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324 r/w 34 of

I.P.C. and he was initially convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 307 of I.P.C. along with other accused by the trial

Court. However, on an appeal preferred by him, that he was

acquitted of the said charge under Section 307 of I.P.C., but was

found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w

34 of I.P.C. along with other accused and he was sentenced to

pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. It is stated that to curb the unlawful

activities in the vicinity of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, that

after obtaining permission from the Sub-Divisional Police

Officer, North Sub-Division, Guntur, that a Rowdy Sheet has

been opened against the petitioner on 20-06-2016 as per Police

Standing Order No.601 Part-1, Vol.2 and the same is continued

and being renewed from time to time on the rolls of Mangalagiri

Rural Police Station till date. It is pleaded that as per Andhra

Pradesh Police Standing Order No.601, a person, who habitually

commits, attempt to commit or abets the commission of offences

involving breach of the peace, disturbances to public order and

security, that the rowdy sheet can be opened and continued

against such persons and in view of the aforesaid Standing

Order, that the present rowdy sheet against the petitioner is

being continued. It is also stated that as per Police Standing

Order No.602 (2) that merely because the petitioner is not being

figured as accused in the previous five years after the last case

in which he was involved, it should not preclude the police to

continue the rowdy sheet if SP/DCP/CP is of the considered

view that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of

public order or one affecting peace and tranquility in the area or

when the victims are not coming forward to give complaint

against him on account of threat from him. Therefore, it is

prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for

respondents.

7. The material on record discloses that initially a case in

Crime No.1 of 2013 was registered against the petitioner for the

offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

along with other accused in Mangalagiri Rural Police Station.

Therefore, as the petitioner involved in the above crime registered

for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C., invoking the

Standing Order No.601 of Police Standing Orders, a Rowdy Sheet

was opened against the petitioner. Invoking clause (12) of Police

Standing Order No.601 which envisages that a Rowdy Sheet can be

opened against a person involved in an offence punishable under

Section 307 of I.P.C. and other offences, initially a rowdy sheet was

opened against the petitioner. The petitioner was also convicted

for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. in the trial

Court. However, in an appeal preferred by him against the said

judgment of conviction to the appellate Court, he was acquitted for

the said charge under Section 307 of I.P.C., but he was found

guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

along with other accused and he was convicted and sentenced to

pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the said offence under Section 324 of

I.P.C. All these facts are incontrovertible facts. It is not denied on

behalf of the respondents/State that the petitioner was acquitted

of the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. in the appeal preferred by

him and that he was only found guilty for the offence punishable

under Section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to pay fine

of Rs.5,000/-.

8. Even after acquittal of the petitioner for the offence

punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C., the rowdy sheet that was

opened against him, is being continued. Now, the

respondents/State sought justification in continuing the said

rowdy sheet against the petitioner by invoking Standing Order

No.601 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual which says that a rowdy

sheet can be continued against the person, when he habitually

commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of

offences involving a breach of peace, disturbance to public order

and security.

9. The respondents/State also invoked Standing Order No.602

(2) of Police Standing Orders to justify continuation of rowdy sheet.

Standing Order No.602 (2) says that "merely because a

suspect/rowdy, having a history sheet, is not being figured as

accused in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he

was involved, it should not preclude the police official to

continue his history sheet if his activities are considered to be

prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one affecting

peace and tranquility in the area."

10. Therefore, the respondents seek justification in continuing

the rowdy sheet against the petitioner even after his acquittal for

the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C., on the aforesaid two

grounds. (1) The first ground is that he was habituated in

committing or abetting the commission of offences involving the

breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security and

(2) the second ground is that even if he is not figured as accused

in the previous five years after the last case in which he was

involved, it should not preclude the police official to continue

the rowdy sheet if it is considered that his activities are

prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting the

public peace and tranquility. But, it is significant to note here

that the respondents except making a bald assertion that the

petitioner is habituated in committing or attempting to commit

the offences involving the breach of peace, disturbance to public

order and tranquility and that his activities are prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order or one affecting the public peace

and tranquility, absolutely no material is produced before this

Court to substantiate the version of the respondents that the

petitioner is habituated in committing or abetting to commit the

offences involving the breach of peace, disturbance to public

order and security and also that his activities are prejudicial to

the maintenance of public order, peace and tranquility. Mere

making bald assertion sans any prima facie evidence to show

that he is habituated in committing offences involving the

breach of peace or that his activities are prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order and tranquility, the respondents

cannot continue the rowdy sheet that was opened against the

petitioner even after his acquittal in a case under Section 307 of

I.P.C.

11. Therefore, without there being any material placed on

record to justify the contention of the respondents that on the

basis of the above facts pleaded that there is a need to continue

the rowdy sheet against the petitioner, the said action on the

part of the respondents in continuing the rowdy sheet cannot be

sustained. Therefore, continuation of the rowdy sheet against

the petitioner is clearly unsustainable under law.

12. In fact, when the police have continued the rowdy sheet that

was opened against another person, who is A-1 in the same crime,

who faced prosecution under Section 307 of I.P.C., on the ground

of his involvement in the said case under Section 307 of I.P.C., the

same was ordered to be closed by this Court in a writ petition filed

by him in W.P.No.17077 of 2019. Therefore, the petitioner, who is

also a co-accused in the said case along with A-1 is also similarly

placed and he is also entitled to the similar relief.

13. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed

declaring the action of the respondents-police officials in

continuing the rowdy sheet No.168 of Mangalagiri Rural Police

Station against the petitioner, as illegal. Consequently, the

respondents-police officials are directed to close the rowdy sheet

that was opened against the petitioner forthwith and remove his

name from the rowdy sheet/suspect sheet board in the concerned

police station. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Date : 06-09-2021 ARR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

WRIT PETITION No.840 OF 2021

Date : 06-09-2021

ARR