Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Nadhiparwala Ajaysingh And Anr. vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors. on 12 March, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)ALD(CRI)496, 1998CRILJ1856
Author: Y.V. Narayana
Bench: Y.V. Narayana
ORDER Y.V. Narayana, J.
1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening 'rowdy sheet' against the petitioners as illegal and unconstitutional.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they are eking out their livelihood by doing petty business. While so, in the year 1990, a case was registered against them for allegedly abducting a boy viz., K. Mysaiah for not repaying the amount due towards cycle hire charges and the cost of the cycle, in Crime No. 29/1990 under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. In that case, the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 8 respectively. Subsequently, the petitioners along with other co-accused were tried by the Court of Sessions and by judgment dated 10-11-1993, the Court acquitted the petitioners of the charges levelled against them in the said crime. Basing upon the said registration of crime against the petitioners, The Station House Officer, Shah Inayath Gunj Police Station opened rowdy sheet against them and the said rowdy sheet was subsequently transferred to Mangalhat Police Station. The contention of the petitioners is that opening of rowdy sheet against them basing on a sole incident i.e., the incident which lead to the registration of Crime No. 29/90, and trial by a Court of Session which ultimately acquitted the petitioners, is contrary to the specific conditions laid down in Police Standing Order No. 742. It is further contended that none of the clauses in Standing Order No. 742 is attracted in this case so as to open rowdy sheet against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance up a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Ejaz v. Govt. of A.P. 1997 (6) ALD 587 in support of his contentions. Learned counsel for the petitioners also produced a copy of another judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 16526/1997 dated 3-9-1997, in which the learned Judge declared the action of the respondents in opening rowdy sheets against the petitioners therein who are co-accused in Crime, No. 29/90 which is referred in this case.
3. Counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. If is submitted that on 17-3-1990, the petitioners along with their associates abducted one K. Narsingh when he failed to return the taxi cycle. Thereafter his father agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 1500A- towards cost of the cycle which was lost by way of instalments @ Rs. 50/- per month for the release of his son. But, when he failed to pay one of the instalments, the boy was brutally murdered and his body was found on the road near Goshacut School in a pool of blood with 17 injuries. On a complaint given by the father of the boy, Crime No. 29/90 was registered. Since the murder of the boy resulted in commotion in the . locality affecting the public peace and tranquillity, the S.H.O., Shah-Inayatgunj Police Station has opened Rowdy Sheet against the petitioners as they were found to be violent, desperate prone to commit bodily offences like murder and with the sole intention to curtail their illegal activities and to keep surveillance over them. The said rowdy sheets were transferred to Mangalhat Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. Therefore, in view of the heinous offence committed by the petitioners, rowdy sheets were opened against them so as to keep a watch upon their activities which is necessary so as to safeguard the larger interests of the public. It is, therefore, submitted that 'there is no malicious intention on the part of the police in opening rowdy sheets against the petitioners, it is further submitted that apart from the above crime, the 2nd petitioner is involved in as many as five crimes viz., 1) Crime No. 137/94 under Section 34(A) of the A.P. Excise Act of Mangalhat Police Station (C.C. No. 1603/96 on the file of HI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which is pending); 2) Cr. No. 246/1994 under Section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act of Mangalhat Police Station (C.C. No. 132/95 which is pending trial before the very same Criminal Court); 3) Cr. No. 281/96 under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 of Mangalhat P.S. (pending trial before Criminal Court); 4) Cr. No. 173/97 under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 of Mangalhat P.S. (pending trial before Criminal Court); and S) Cr. No. 298/97 Under Section. 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act of Mangalhat P.S. (under investigation).' It is submitted that in view of the pendency of above criminal cases against 2nd petitioner, the police had to open and continue the rowdy sheet against him also so as to keep him under their surveillance. It-is, therefore, submitted that maintaining rowdy sheets against the petitioners is not illegal nor unconstitutional.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, the only case which was registered against him (Cr. No. 29/90) was ultimately ended in acquittal and that since he does not fall within the purview of any of the clauses of Standing Orders 742 of A.P. Police Standing Orders, the police are not entitled to continue the rowdy sheet against him. Insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, it is contended that since manufacture of arrack or any other illicit liquor, which may be an offence under the provisions of A.P. Excise Act, cannot be said to be an offence involving 'breach of peace,' the police are not entitled to continue rowdy sheet against him also.
5. Standing Order 742, which empowers the police to open rowdy sheet against a person, reads as follows :
Rowdies:- (1) The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 88) may be opened for them under the order of the Superintendent of Police or Sub-Divisional Officer.
(a) persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace;
(b) persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(c) and 110(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974);
(c) persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act or under Section 3, Clause (12), of the Towns Nuisances Act;
(d) persons who habitually tease women and girls by passing indecent remarks or otherwise; and
(e) in the case of rowdies residing in an area under one Police Station but are found to be frequently visiting the area under one or more other Police Stations, their rowdy sheets can be maintained at all such Police Stations.
(G.O. Ms. No. 656, Home (Police-D) Deptt., dated 8th April, 1971).
(2) Instructions in Order 735 regarding discontinuance of History Sheets shall also apply to Rowdy Sheets.
Clauses (b) to (e) of the Standing Order are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The remaining clause is Clause (a). This Court in Majid Babu v. Home Secretary, Govt. of A.P. (1987) 2 Andh LT 904, had an occasion to examine and interpret the words 'habitual offender,' wherein it was held as under :
Two instances would not make a person a habitual offender. At least more than two instances should be present before a person can be described as a habitual offender. Merely because the two persons are figuring as accused in respect of two crimes registered by Police, no inference can be drawn that they are habitual offenders.
In this case, as far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, except Crime No. 29/90, which too ended in acquittal later on, no other crime is registered so far against him nor there is any allegation by the respondents that he is causing breach of peace in the locality off and on or that he is frequently involved in commission of any offence. Therefore, it is highly difficult for this Court to come to a conclusion that the 1st petitioner ever attempted to commit any offence or abetted commission of any offence which led to the breach of peace or tranquillity in that locality. As held by this Court, single instance is not sufficient to call a person as habitual offender. Thus, in the absence of any allegation against the 1st petitioner that he is committing offences or abets commission of any offence which led to the breach of peace in that locality, the 1st petitioner cannot be called as habitual offender and, therefore, the respondents in this case are not justified in continuing rowdy sheet against the first petitioner.
6. When coming to the second petitioner, it is I brought to my notice that apart from Crime No. 29/90, which ended in acquittal, as many as five crimes were registered against him and all are pending trial. The above crimes were registered under the provisions of A.P. Excise Act and A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. As already held, a person's involvement in more than two cases on the allegation of involving in lawless activities resulting in breach of peace is sufficient to attract Police Standing Order No. 742 and as held in Ejaz's case 1997 (6) ALD 587 (AP) (supra), the police would be well within their limits to enter such person's name in the rowdy sheet under Clause (a) of the Standing Order 742. Since the whole purpose of classifying a particular person as rowdy sheeter and entering his name in the rowdy sheet is only to prevent commission of any offences by such person, the respondents in this case are justified in opening rowdy-sheet against the 2nd petitioner herein who is allegedly involved in manufacturing of illicit liquor. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that the 'offence' as defined in the A.P. Excise Act or A.P. Prohibition Act cannot fall within the definition of 'offence' the commission of which leads to the breach of peace and tranquillity in the locality. According to him, only such of those offences which are enumerated in Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code can be termed as 'offences' which lead to the breach of public peace and tranquillity and that Clause (a) of Standing Order 742 is applicable only to such of those persons who commit offences which are enumerated under Chapter VIII of the I.P.C. and to non else. But, I am unable to agree with this contention. It is most common phenomenon in these areas that illicit liquor is manufactured by some anti-social elements without any regard to the law. Since their main object is to sell liquor at a cheaper rate, they do not bother to adhere to any standard in preparing such liquors and this callous attitude on the part of these anti-social elements sometimes present disastrous results as innocent people who, having been lured by these cheap and spurious liquors, consume these liquors in large quantities, and lose their lives leaving all their dependants to poverty and untold misery. Therefore, this problem of manufacture of illicit liquor has become a constant head-ache for the Government and even though intermittant raids are conducted by the personnel of the Excise Department at the bases of manufacture of these liquors, there is no great impact upon' these elements. Therefore, they became scot-free and are manufacturing liquors freely at their choice. However, the State is bound to take all possible preventive measures to check these elements. One such measure that is available to the State mechanism under the law is opening of rowdy sheet under the Police Standing Orders against such persons. As already observed by this court, opening of rowdy sheet would only enable the police to have the power of surveillance upon such bad elements and nothing more. Therefore, 1 am of the view that under Standing Order 742, the police are entitled to open rowdy sheet against those persons who commit offences under the provisions of Section 34-A of the A.P. Excise Act and the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. When coming to the case on hand, rowdy sheet is continued against the 2nd petitioner who is allegedly involved in the commission of offences under A.P. Excise Act and A.P. Prohibition Act and in view of my above discussion, I hold that there is no illegality in such continuance.
7. In the result, the rowdy sheet opened against 1st petitioner is quashed and as far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, I hold that the respondents are justified in continuing rowdy sheet against him. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
That rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.
Witness the Hon'ble Sri Umesh Chandra Banerjee Chief Justice on this Thursday the Twelfth day of March One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Eight.