Tungala Subba Rao, Krishna Dist ... vs Sho, Avanigadda P.S., Krishna ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1974 AP

                             1




       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

            WRIT PETITION No.35744 of 2017

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the

respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a

rowdy sheet is still being continued against the petitioners

despite the fact that there are no cases pending against them.

He relies upon para 3 of the counter affidavit filed, wherein

the details are given with regard to each of the case. Learned

counsel points outs that only in one case the 1st petitioner

was convicted to undergo life imprisonment but in view of his

good behavior he was released from Central Jail in the year

2004 and all the other cases ended in acquittal. In so far as

the 2nd petitioner is concerned, learned counsel relying upon

the counter affidavit itself argues that all the seven cases

ended in acquittal. It is his contention that the continuation

of the rowdy sheet is absolutely unnecessary besides being

violative of their fundamental rights. Learned counsel points

out that even in the only case, wherein he was convicted, the

petitioner was released from prison on the ground of his good

behavior.

Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that in view of this continuation of the rowdy sheet is totally

unwarranted. It is submitted that because of this rowdy

sheet petitioners' fundamental rights are infringed. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the recent

judgment of the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court of

India in a case of K.S.Putta Swamy and another v Union of

India and others1 continuation of rowdy sheet is

unwarranted particularly, when the case is not supported by

law. He points out that they are being periodically summoned

to the police station on every Sunday and on the ground of

surveillance their personal liberty is being infringed.

Therefore, he submits that it is a fit case to quash the rowdy

sheet.

Learned Government Pleader for Home on the other

hand argues that the 1st petitioner was convicted in a serious

crime under the Explosive Act. As both the petitioners are

continuing their criminal activities it is necessary in public

interest to continue the rowdy sheet against the petitioners.

Learned Government Pleader for Home also relies upon the

Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders to argue that

continuation of rowdy sheet is necessary in view of their

antecedent history and in public interest.

After considering both the submissions, this Court

notices that the petitioners' counsel rightly relied upon the

averments in the counter affidavit to argue his case. The 1st

petitioner was convicted in one case and the other seven

cases ended in acquittal. Even in the case in which he was

(2017) 10 SCC 1

convicted he was released from prison in the year 2004 on the

ground of good behavior. Therefore, it is clear that he

respondent-State itself agreed that the 1st petitioner is

reformed prisoner.

As far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned all the cases

ended in acquittal. It is important to note that this counter

affidavit is filed in the year 2017 does not state that the

petitioners are involved in a specific criminal activity after

their acquittal. Mere fact that they were accused in a crime

once, does not lead to a conclusion that they are habitual

offenders and they support criminal activities etc. The law on

the subject is very clear unless and until police have clear and

categorical material they cannot continue rowdy sheet. As

per the police standing orders they are supposed to review the

rowdy sheets in every December on the basis of cogent

material. No material is referred to in the counter affidavit to

justify the extension of the rowdy sheet or to show that the

case was reviewed periodically

Last but not the least after the judgment of the

Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

in K.S.Putta Swamy case the right to life and privacy can

only be restricted as per the procedure adopted by law. This

Court has already noted in more than one judgment that the

Police Standing Orders are not the law.

In that view of the matter, this Court opines that the

petitioners have made a case for interference. In view of the

law on the subject both the Rowdy Sheet Nos.305 and 306

pending on the file of Avanigadda Police Station are directed

to be closed immediately. Further, the petitioners shall not be

called to the police station or subjected to any surveillance

etc.

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending,

if any, shall also stand closed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date:22.04.2022 Ssv