Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M. Venkatachalam And 4 Ors. vs The Secretary, Home Department And 3 ... on 28 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000CRILJ1831
Author: Elipe Dharma Rao
Bench: Elipe Dharma Rao
ORDER Elipe Dharma Rao, J.
1. This writ petition was filed by five petitioners to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to close the rowdy sheet Nos. 71, 52, 50, 43 and 31 respectively which were opened by the Jaggaiahpet Police Station, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the residents of Jaggaiahpet town of Krishna District and they are eking out their livlihood by running hard business and petty shops. The petitioner No.1 is having a cycle shop, the petitioner No.2 runs a small pesticides shop, the petitioner No.3 does business of selling scrap, petitioner No.4 is driver and the petitioner No.5 is a petty contractor, especially prior to three to four years of the filing of this writ petition, they are leading a peaceful life without involving in any criminal activities. Initially, the officials of Jaggaiahpet Police Station registered a case in crime No. 32 of 1994 under section 324 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code against the first petitioner and some others and the same was numbered as CC No. 75 of 1994, which ended in acquittal in view of the compromise between the parties, before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet on 17-4-1995. Another casein Cr. No.12 of 1994 for the offence U/s. 324 r/w 34 IPC was registered, which was registered as CC No. 37 of 1994, also was compromised and the petitioner was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet, on 24-10-1994. In another case, in Crime No. 17 of 1993 registered against the first and second petitioner they were acquitted on 11-7-94 by the same court. C.C. No.86 of 1993 filed by the Jaggaiahpet Police Station against the petitioners 3, 4, and 5 under section 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. also ended in acquittal after trial by the same court, by its judgment dated 28-7-94. In CC No.86 of 1994, registered against petitioner No.4 and others, the petitioner was acquitted on 17-4-1995. In CC No. 273 of 1996 registered against petitioner No.5, he was acquitted in view of the compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalath. Therefore, from the year 1995 onwards, the first petitioner is not involved in any criminal cases. It is further alleged by the petitioners in their affidavit that as per law, the respondents are not reviewing the necessity of continuing the rowdy sheet opened against them, in contravention of the Police Standing Order. They further submitted that whenever there is any commotion or nuisance in the town, the petitioners were taken into custody and are subjected to unnecessary harassment by the respondents. It is further contended by the petitioners that the rowdy sheets are continued without obtaining the prior approval of the Superintendent of Police, Krishna district. The petitioner No.1 further stated that from 1995 onwards he is not involved in any criminal cases except 75 of 1999, in which he was falsely implicated by the officials of the Jaggaiahpet Police Station. Therefore, filed the writ petition contending that the action of the respondents in opening and continuing the rowdy sheets against them is contrary to the Police Standing Order 742 and offending their personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to quash the rowdy sheets opened against them.
3. In reply to the above contentions raised by the petitioners, Sri P.Murali Rama Krishna, Station House Officer, Jaggaiahpet Police Station, the fourth respondent herein filed counter affidavit admitting the opening of rowdy sheets against the petitioners. It is further submitted that except petitioner No.2 the other petitioners were involved in crime No.96 of 1999 dated 10-7-99 and therefore, it is just and necessary to continue their names in the rowdy sheet. He further submitted that the petitioners are disturbing public peace and tranquility and denied that they are leading a peaceful life without being involved in criminal activities. It is further stated that the first petitioner is involved in the following crimes of Jaggaiahpet Police Station:
1. Cr.No. 17 of 1993 under Sec.324 r/w 34 IPC (A-6)
2. Cr.No.28 of 1993 under section 107 Cr.P.C.
3. Cr.No.32 of 1994 under section 324 r/w 34 IPC
4. Cr.No. 9/96 under section 307, 324 r/w 34 IPC
5. Cr.No. 101/94 under section 110 (e) Cr.P.C.
6. Cr.No. 96/99 under section 147, 148, 427, 341, 324, 307, 506 r/w 149 IPC (A-12) The second petitioner was involved in Cr. No.17/93 under section 323 r/w 34 IPC and Cr. No. 101 of 1994 under section 110(e) Cr.P.C.
4. The third petitioner was involved in the following crimes:
1. Cr.No. 19 of 1993 under section 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 IPC.
2. Cr. No. 29 of 1993 under section 107 Cr.P.C.
3. Cr. No. 19 of 1995 under section 506, 341, 323 IPC
4. Cr. No.35 of 1995 under section 151 Cr.P.C.
5. Cr. No.102/1994 under section 110(e) Cr. P.C.
6. Cr. No. 96 of 1999 under section 147, 148, 427, 341, 324, 307, 506 r/w 149 and 109 IPC.
The fourth petitioner was involved in the following crimes:
1. Cr. No. 19 of 1993 under section 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 IPC
2. Cr. No. 29 of 1993 under section 107 Cr. P.C.
3. Cr. No. 28 of 1993 under section 324 r/w 34 IPC.
4. Cr. No. 18 of 1995 under section 506, 341, 323 IPC.
5. Cr. No. 35 of 1995 under section 151 Cr. P.C.
6. Cr. No.102 of 1994 under section 110(e) Cr. P.C.
7. Cr. No.96 of 1999 under section 147, 148, 427, 341, 324, 307, 506 r/w 149 and 109 IPC.
The fifth petitioner was involved in the following crimes:
1. Cr. No. 19 of 1993 under section 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 IPC.
2. Cr. No. 29 of 1993 under section 107 Cr.P.C.
3. Cr. No.117 of 1996 under section 324 r/w 34 IPC.
4. Cr. No. 102 of 1994 under section 110(e) of Cr.P.C.
5. Cr. No. 96 of 1999 under section 147, 148, 427, 341, 324, 307, 506 r/w 149 and 109 IPC.
Therefore, having regard to the fact that the petitioners were involved in so many crimes and also having regard to the fact of their involvement in criminal activities, though they were acquitted in most of the cases, the rowdy sheets opened against them are being continued. It is further stated that the acquittals were the result of compromise entered into between the parties and therefore, it can not be said that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the said criminal cases. The respondents further submitted that the rowdy sheets were opened on 10-10-1995 on the instructions of superior Police Officials. They denied the allegation that the respondents are not reviewing the necessity of continuing the rowdy sheet or not.
5. As seen from the submissions made at the Bar by both the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home, the petitioners do not appear to be so innocent as focused in their writ affidavit. Their involvement in criminal activities is very much evident from the number of crimes registered against them by the Jaggaiahpet Police Station. Though they are acquitted in most of the cases, the acquittal is on the ground of compromise between the parties and therefore, it can be said that they are habituated to criminal activities, inasmuch as they are repeatedly and persistently involved in a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts and their criminal acts are not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts. Therefore, to keep a surveillance over the activities of the petitioners, the continuance of rowdy sheet cannot be said to offending the personal liberty of the petitioners. Though the petitioners are said to be poor persons eking out their livlihood by running petty business, but as seen from the record, they are very much involved in criminal activities right from 1993 to 1999, therefore, as submitted by the learned Government Pleader, the continuance of rowdy sheet is in accordance of the Police Standing Order, 735.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has place reliance on the judgment of this court in PULLA BHASKAR VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WARANGAL AND OTHERS . The petitioner therein was acquitted in the criminal case in the year 1994 and from 1994 to 1997, there was no criminal case registered against him. In those circumstances, the learned Judge interfered with the matter and held that the petitioner can not be treated as a habitual offender and therefore, his name was directed to be deleted from the rowdy sheet. Whereas in the instant case, the petitioners are involved in as many as 5 to 7 cases from 1993 to 1996, besides a case in Cr. No. 96 of 1999 for the offences under section 147, 148, 427, 341, 324, 307, 506 read with Sec. 149 and 109 of Indian Penal Code, except petitioner No.2. Therefore, the ratio laid down in PULLA BHASKER'S case is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on yet another judgment of this court in P.APPARAO VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. In the said case, rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner in the year 1975 and continued upto 1996 and there is nothing on record to suggest that the matter was reviewed and the competent authority felt that there was necessity to retain the history sheet. Therefore, in those circumstances, the learned Judge held that it offends the Police Standing Order 735 and thus ordered to delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy sheet. In the instant case, there is material to suggest that the petitioners were involved in more than five offences commencing from 1993 to 1996 and the latest being a grave offence in crime No. 96 of 1999 and thus all the crimes are suggestive of the fact that the petitioners are habitual offenders.
8. The term "habitual offender" was considered by the Supreme Court in a decision VIJAY NARAIN SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR , while dealing with the analogous provisions in the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981and interpreted as persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offences involving breach of peace. It further held that the expression "habitually" means repetedly or persistently. It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit............A single act or omission, can not, therefore, be characterized as a habitual act or omission. Because of the idea of habit involves an element of persistence and tendency to repeat the acts or omissions of the same class or kind, if the acts or omissions in question are not of the same kind or even if they are of the same kind when they are committed with a long interval of time between them they can not be treated as habitual offenders.
9. Applying the principle laid down by the Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of the case, the five petitioners are involved in as many as seven crimes during the period from 1993 to 1999 and all the crimes are similar in nature and there is not much long gap between the commission of one crime to another crime. Therefore, in view of these circumstances, the petitioners herein can be terms as habitual offenders, as contemplated in Police Standing Order, 742. It is also manifest from the averments of the respondents, that they are reviewing periodically the necessity to continue the rowdy sheets against the petitioners.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that continuance of the rowdy sheets is justified in the circumstances afore mentioned. However, the respondents are at liberty to review the matter and take appropriate decision, with regard to the continuance or otherwise, of the rowdy sheets opened against the petitioners, in the interest of public peace and tranquility.