Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gujjula Venkata Subba Reddy Dr vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 9 September, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.2146 OF 2020
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the action of the respondents in continuing Rowdy Sheet No.117/2019 on the file of Talluru Police Station, Talluru Mandal, Prakasam District against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against Police Standing Order 742 and consequently close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner.
The petitioner is resident of East Gangavaram Village, Talluru Mandal, born and brought up in an agriculturist family having studied upto X standard. The petitioner settled as an agriculturist while devoting himself to cultivation of lands. It is contended that the petitioner never intended or even involved in any criminal act. Due to political rivalry in the village, while this petitioner was working for one of the political parties, the rival party has been trying to implicate this petitioner in false and frivolous crimes with the aid of the fourth respondent in furtherance of their aim.
It is contended that the petitioner used to extend his help to the illiterate agriculturists in obtaining pattadar passbooks and loans, as such the rival party in the village thought that they would be defeated if the petitioner contest in the forthcoming panchayat election and hatched a plan in collusion with the fourth respondent to prevent the petitioner from contesting in the forthcoming panchayat elections and the fourth respondent opened a Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner illegally without following due procedure with an aim to take revenge against this petitioner.
MSM,J WP No.2146 of 2020 2 It is contended that three crimes were registered by the fourth respondent/Station House Officer, Talluru Police Station in collusion with the rival political parties of the village. The police, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheets, registered calendar cases and P.R.C, as shown below:
1. Crime No.11 of 2019, numbered as C.C.No.61/2019
2. Crime No.61 of 2019, numbered as C.C.No.139/2019
3. Crime No.109 of 2019, numbered as P.R.C.No.28/2019 The above calendar cases and P.R.C are pending before the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Darsi, Prakasam District. Even prior to disposal of the said cases, the fourth respondent/Station House Officer opened a rowdy sheet to cause prejudice to this petitioner and cause inconvenience to restrict his movements.
It is contended that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and he has no tendency to commit any breach of law and not convicted in any crime, as such opening of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is prejudicial to his dignity in the society and it is nothing but putting the petitioner to undue harassment and mental agony to demean the name and fame of this petitioner in the society. Thus, the fourth respondent/Station House Officer with a malafide intention opened Rowdy Sheet No.117/2019 against this petitioner.
It is further contended that, in pursuance of opening Rowdy Sheet No.117/2019, the fourth respondent/Station House Officer started calling the petitioner to the police station since 22.12.2029 on the pretext of taking photographs and thumb impressions. When the petitioner enquired about the reasons for the same, the fourth respondent informed that Rowdy Sheet No.117/2019 was opened MSM,J WP No.2146 of 2020 3 against him, which is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Police Standing Order 742 and consequently requested to issue a direction to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner.
The third respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Darsi Town, Prakasam District, filed detailed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, inter alia, admitting that Rowdy Sheet No.117/2019 was opened against this petitioner, as the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in three crimes viz.,:-
1. Crime No.11 of 2019 under Section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C and Section 7of Essential Commodities Act. (pending trial vide C.C.No.61/2019)
2. Crime No.61 of 2019 under Section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C and Section 7of Essential Commodities Act. (pending trial vide C.C.No.139/2019)
3. Crime No.109 of 2019 under Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C (numbered as P.R.C.No.28/2019) In view of the involvement of the petitioner in the above criminal cases, to curb and curtail his unlawful activities, after obtaining permission from the third respondent/Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, vide Proceedings C.No.7/History Sheets/SDPO dated 07.11.2019, Rowdy Sheet No.117/2019 on the file of Talluru Police Station, Talluru Mandal, Prakasam District and the same is being continued and renewed from time to time.
The third respondent also narrated the circumstances under which a rowdy sheet can be opened under the orders of SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO while extracting Andhra Pradesh Police Manual (A.P.P.M henceforth) Standing Order 601. A rowdy sheet may be opened in MSM,J WP No.2146 of 2020 4 accordance with Standing Order No.601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, Standing Order No.601 reads as follows:
"The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (from 80) may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO.
1. Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offence involving a breach of the peace, disturbance to public order and security.
2.. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108 (1) (i) and 110 (e) and (g) of Cr.P.C.
3. Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City Police Act or under Section 3, Clause 12, of the A.P. Towns Nuisances Act.
4. Persons who habitually tease woman and girls and pass indecent remarks including offences.
5. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offence of rape.
6. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offences of PCSO act, 2012 and Acid Attacks.
7. Rowdy Sheets for the rowdies residing in one Police Station area but found frequenting the other PSs area, can be maintained at all such Police Stations.
8. Persons who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties or in the habit of collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents.
9. Persons who incite and instigate communal/caste or political riots.
10. Persons detained under the AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1966 for a period of 6 months or more.
11. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of assault on public servants, under Arms Act and such offences punishable with imprisonment of 2 years or more
12. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of murder and attempt to murder.
13. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of chain snatching.
14. Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representatives of the Peoples Act, 1951, for rigging and carrying away ballot papers, Boxes and other polling material."
MSM,J WP No.2146 of 2020 5 The reason for opening rowdy sheet is involvement of this petitioner in various crimes. No doubt, Standing Order 602(2) of A.P.P.M specifies circumstances under which a history sheet can be opened. Standing Order 602 of A.P.Police Manual stipulates that care should be taken to see that History Sheets are opened under this Order only for persons who are likely to turn out to be habitual criminals or who are members of organised crime syndicates or such organisations who had history or plan for violence and therefore, require close surveillance. The material and information collected to obtain orders from the Superintendent of Police or other officers authorised to order opening of history sheets in this category should bring out the above requirements. In the present facts, Standing Order 602 of A.P.P.M is not applicable, but 601 (2) of A.P.P.M is applicable, subject to satisfying mandatory requirement in Standing Order 602 of A.P. Police Manual.
In view of the Standing Order mentioned above, opening of rowdy sheet against this petitioner due to his involvement in three crimes is not an illegality committed by the fourth respondent/Station House Officer.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home further contended that, if, for any reason, the rowdy sheet is closed when the petitioner is facing trial in the cases, there is every possibility that the petitioner may tamper the record and win over the witnesses. Due to involvement of this petitioner in case of attempt to murder, no one is coming forward to the police station to loge a fresh complaint against him, in view of the public interest and to safeguard the residents of Talluru Mandal, where the petitioner is MSM,J WP No.2146 of 2020 6 residing. Therefore, the truth or otherwise in the allegations can be decided after full-fledged trial in the above cases and therefore, the same cannot be declared as illegal and finally requested to dismiss the writ petition.
Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point that arose for consideration is:
"Whether opening of Rowdy Sheet No.117 of 2019 on the file of Talluru Police Station, Talluru Mandal, Prakasam District, is in strict adherence of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Order 601 and its continuation is in consonance with Standing Order 602(2). If not, whether Rowdy Sheet No.117 of 2019 be declared as illegal, arbitrary and direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against this petitioner?"
P O I N T:
Undisputedly, the petitioner is the resident of East Gannavaram Village, Talluru Mandal, within the jurisdictional limits of Talluru Police Station. He was arrayed as an accused in three crimes referred above which are now pending C.C.No.61 of 2019, C.C.No.139 of 2019 and P.R.C.No.28 of 2019, pending on the file of Judicial I Class Magistrate, Darsi, Prakasam District.
The alleged offence committed by this petitioner in C.C.No.61 of 2019 and C.C.No.139 of 2019 are punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. Whereas, the offence committed by the petitioner in P.R.C.No.28 of 2019 pending on the file of Judicial I Class Magistrate, Darsi, Prakasam District is for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. Mere arraying this petitioner as an accused in C.C.No.61 of 2019 and C.C.No.139 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 420 MSM,J WP No.2146 of 2020 7 r/w 34 I.P.C and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act is not a ground to open a rowdy sheet against this petitioner in terms of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Standing Order 601 which is extracted in the earlier paragraphs.
Whereas, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner has committed various crimes and thereby, became a habitual offender and it is covered by Clause (1) of A.P.P.M. Standing Order 601, which permits the police to open a rowdy sheet when a person who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offence involving a breach of the peace, disturbance to public order and security. Taking advantage of this clause, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contended that, on account of commission of three crimes by the petitioner which are subject matter of C.C.No.61 of 2019, C.C.No.139 of 2019 and P.R.C.No.28 of 2019, pending on the file of Judicial I Class Magistrate, Darsi, Prakasam District., this petitioner can be described as habitual offender and therefore, opening of rowdy sheet against this petitioner for various offences allegedly committed by him is in accordance with law.
No doubt, commission of offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act is not included in any of the clauses in A.P.P.M. Standing Order 601. However, it is to be examined whether involvement of those offences based on arraying this petitioner as an accused in the above offences, can he be described as a habitual offender or abettor to commit an offence, involving breach of trust or disturbance of public peace and tranquillity?. Mere involvement of this petitioner in MSM,J WP No.2146 of 2020 8 various crimes or abetting to commit crimes is breach of peace or disturbance to public order and tranquillity is not sufficient to open a rowdy sheet against this petitioner.
Time and again, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh considered the scope of Clause (i) of A.P.P.M. Standing Order 601 in Beerjepally Venkatesh Babu v. State of A.P1, where, the word 'habitual offender' is analyzed in para No.3 of the judgment. The crucial expressions used in Standing Order 601 indicate that the person must habitually commit or attempt to commit or abets the commission of offences involving breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. In other words, one must be a habitual offender or keeps abetting commission of offences, which is a plural of the expression 'offence'. Therefore, if the petitioner has involved himself in a single crime, he cannot be described as a 'habitual offender'. For one to become a habitual offender, propensity of repetition of the same conduct should be witnesses. Otherwise, involvement in a single crime cannot be described as habitual involvement in offences. Therefore, in the opinion of the court, the first criteria for the petitioner to be described as a 'rowdy' as per Standing Order 601 is not satisfied. Similarly, even assuming that the person is intimidating by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means for parting with movable and immovable properties. Similar issue came up for consideration before the Court. The word habitual offender is analyzed in catena of judgments.
1 LAWS (APH) 2014 3 87 MSM,J WP No.2146 of 2020 9 In Dhanji Ram Sharma V. Superintendent of Police2, the Apex Court held that:
"A habitual offender or a person habitually addicted to crime is one who is a criminal by habit or by disposition formed by repletion of crimes. Reasonably belief of the police officer that the suspect is a habitual offender or is a person habitually addicted to crime is sufficient to justify action under Rules 23.4(3)(b) and 23.9(2). Mere belief is not sufficient. The belief must be reasonable, it must be based on reasonable grounds. The suspect may or may not have been convicted of any crime. Even apart from any conviction, there may be reasonable grounds for believing that he is a habitual offender."
In other Judgments in Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram and Puttagunta Pasi alias Penta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada and another3, the Court took similar view and held as follows:
"A Rowdy sheet can be opened against a person classified as a rowdy, if such person habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offence involving a breach of the peace. In plain language a person who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences alone can be classified as a rowdy and rowdy sheet can be opened, provided such offence relates to involving breach of the peace. If the offence even habitually committed, or attempted to be committed or abet commission of the offence, but not involving a breach of the peace, would not enable and authorize the police officer concerned to open rowdy sheet and classify a person as rowdy. It is in this area, a Police officer has to consider the material available on record and satisfy himself that commission of offence habitually by a person has resulted or is likely to result in breach of peace. The satisfaction is required to be arrived at in an objective manner and on the basis of the material available on record.
In the instant case, the petitioners are involved only in two cases and these cases have nothing to do with breach of the peace. It is not the case of the respondent, that commission of these offences has resulted in breach of the peace in the village or town, as the case may be. Involvement in two cases itself would not attract Clause 9a) of S.O.742 and the person/persons cannot be treated as rowdy and no rowdy sheet can be opened against such person(s). Be that as it may, even the said two cases registered against the petitioners, admittedly, had not resulted in any breach of peace. Viewed from any angle, the rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners are ultra vires to the Police Standing Orders. The action of the respondents in opening rowdy sheets against the petitioners is illegal and unconstitutional. In the case of Puttagunta Pasi 's case (3rd cited supra), this Court held as follows:
2
AIR 1966 SC 1766 3 (1998) 3 ALT 55 (DB) MSM,J WP No.2146 of 2020 10 " From the above, it is clear that rowdy sheets cannot be opened against any individual in a casual and mechanical manner. Dubbing a person as an habitual offender and to open a rowdy sheet is not sufficient. On the other hand, due care and caution shall be taken by the Police before characterizing a person as a rowdy. The important element that has to be seen in the acts of an offender is whether the acts so committed by a person will have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquility. In Kamma Bapuji's case, the learned single Judge, following the decisions already rendered by the Supreme Court and this Court as cited above, held that opening of a rowdy sheet against the petitioner therein viz., Kamma Bapuji is incorrect.
The question involved in this Writ Appeal is almost similar to the one involved in Kamma Bapuji's case. Apart from this, the appellant himself has filed an affidavit today swearing that in future he will not give room for any action to be taken against him for any offences. If the rowdy sheet opened against him is cancelled, he assures that he would make a decent living without attempting to disturb public peace and tranquility. The said affidavit is taken on record. From the facts narrated, it is very difficult to bring the appellant within the definition of a 'habitual offender'. The mention of his name in the rowdy sheet is of non-application of mind by the authorities to the relevant provisions viz., Standing Orders 741 and 742 of the Police Standing Orders. The learned single Judge would have agreed with the judgment rendered by his Lordship Justice B.Sudershan Reddy in the case of Kamma Bapuji's case and would have quashed the proceedings relating to opening of rowdy sheet if the said judgment was placed before his Lordship. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned single Judge (B.Sudershan Reddy, L.) rendered in Kamma Bapuji's case.
In the case of Shaik Mahaboob v Commissioner of Police, this court held as follows:
"Admittedly the two cases registered against the petitioner have ended in acquittal. The third reference that a report was received from Special Branch Police that the petitioner threatened the Managing Editor of Siasat daily 'for not publishing in that paper about his organization' and also threatened to burn the newspaper, cannot be taken as 'copiously substantiated'. Something more is required so as to hold that threat was real which requires preventive measures as either the complainant himself would have registered a complaint or the police ought to have taken some initiative on this threat. In the absence of this it is not in accord with law to treat the said situation as a cogent evidence so as to bring within the ambit of the person being habitual offender taking that case as a third incident. True whether commission of an offence or attempt to commit an offence could be taken as the relevant factor for the purpose of entering the name of a person in a rowdy sheet within the meaning of S.O.742 but mere assertion does not lead to the situation that a person attempted to commit an offence. In the circumstances, adequate material has not been made out so as to enter the name of a petitioner in the 'rowdy sheet' and continue the same unless substantial cogent material is available. In this case it is not possible to hold that enough material within the meaning of the judicial pronouncement laid down is available. Hence, mandamus is issued directing the respondents to delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy sheet. This will not however preclude the respondents if fresh circumstances in future arise, warranting opening of rowdy sheet".
In view of the law declared the Apex Court and High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, the petitioner cannot be described as a habitual offender, since he did not commit any offence, except MSM,J WP No.2146 of 2020 11 alleged offences punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C, Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. However, mere alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C, Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C without involvement of this petitioner in breach of peace or disturbance to public order and security, a rowdy sheet cannot be opened. Therefore, to conclude that the petitioner repeated similar offence, as required in Clause (1) of Standing Order 601, it is necessary that such offences must disturb breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. In the absence of such breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security, opening of rowdy sheet invoking Clause (2) of Standing Order 601 is an illegality.
Yet, another contention of the respondents is that, PRC No.28 of 2019 was registered and the petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C and it is pending before the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Darsi, Prakasam District though not committed to Sessions Division as on the date of filing this writ petition. Taking advantage of P.R.C.No.28 of 2019, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contended that pending of rowdy sheet invoking Clause 12 of Standing Order 601 of A.P.P.M is justifiable. Clause 12 says that persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of murder and attempt to murder, opening of rowdy sheet is permissible.
MSM,J WP No.2146 of 2020 12 However, this is considered by the learned single Judge of this Court in Yerramseti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh4 this Court held as follows:
"Therefore, a close scrutiny of Order 601 pellucidly tells us that offences like Rape, Acid attacks, offences under POCSO Act, 2012, offences involving assault on public servants, committing offences under Arms Act appear to have been rated as grave offences by the framers of the A.P. Police Manual and considered that a single charge sheet for such offences was sufficient for opening rowdy sheet. It is in this context when Serial No.12 is perused, it is mentioned therein that persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of murder and attempt to murder (302 & 307 IPC), can be classified as rowdies and rowdy sheets can be opened. There is no gain saying that the offence of murder and its attempt are grave offences.
So, going by the previous entries in Serial Nos.5, 6, & 11, it can be said that a single charge sheet for the offence of murder (302 IPC) or attempt to murder (307 IPC) is suffice to open a rowdy sheet. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, plural noun "charge sheets" is employed because two distinct offences i.e., murder and attempt to murder are referred there. In my considered view, Serial No.12 can also be interpreted otherwise as- "persons on whom charge sheet is filed under the offence of murder or attempt to murder (302 & 307 IPC)".
Therefore, this Court agrees with the contention of the learned Government Pleader that a single charge sheet is suffice. Even otherwise, as submitted by him, the term "charge sheets" can be interpreted as singular noun "charge sheet" by virtue of Section 3(35) of the A.P. General Clauses Act, 1891 which says that words in the singular shall include the plural and words in the plural shall include the singular. In the case of Rinku Alias Hukku (supra 4), the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court interpreted the word "activities" appearing in Section 2(c) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 as "activity". In the instant case, if the word "charge sheets" is interpreted as "charge sheet", then Serial No.12 shall be read as "Persons on whom charge sheet is filed under the offence of murder or attempt to murder (302 or 307 IPC). For the aforesaid reasons I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that more than one charge sheet is essential"
In view of law declared, filing of single charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C is sufficient to enable the police to open rowdy sheet against this petitioner. However, it was not the contention of the respondents in the entire 4 Writ Petition Nos.17667, 17668, 18301 & 18305 of 2019 dated 12.05.2020 MSM,J WP No.2146 of 2020 13 counter affidavit, but the contention is that, in case the rowdy sheet is directed to be closed, the petitioner may win over the witnesses in the pending cases. Similarly, no person is coming forward to loge a report against this petitioner apprehending danger in the hands of the petitioner, but this was also considered by the learned single Judge of this Court in Yerramseti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra) and in the absence of any material to substantiate such contention, it would not form the basis to open a rowdy sheet against this petitioner, as it would infringe the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
By applying the same principle to the present facts of the case, opening of Rowdy Sheet No.117/2019 due to involvement in C.C.No.61 of 2019, C.C.No.139 of 2019 and P.R.C.No.28 of 2019 pending on the file of Judicial I Class Magistrate, Darsi, Prakasam District, on the ground that the villagers are apprehending threat of this petitioner because of his criminal background is not a ground to open rowdy sheet against this petitioner. Therefore, opening of rowdy sheet(s) against this petitioner on these two grounds is illegal and arbitrary. However, filing of charge sheet against this petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C and its pendency is sufficient to open rowdy sheet against this petitioner, in view of Clause 12 of Standing Order 601 of A.P.P.M. By applying the principle laid down by the learned single Judge of this Court with reference to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act, opening of rowdy sheet against this petitioner, invoking Clause 12 of Standing Order 601 of A.P.P.M is in MSM,J WP No.2146 of 2020 14 accordance with law. Hence, I find no ground to declare Rowdy Sheet No.117/2019 on the file of Talluru Police Station, Talluru Mandal, Prakasam District as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:09.09.2020 sp