Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Heard Mr. K. Srinivas Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri J.K. Qureshi, learned Govt. Pleader for Home. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the rowdy sheet opened against the appellant by the Police in exercise of the powers under Standing Order No. 742 of the Police Standing Orders is proper and legal. The Law and Order Police, Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada opened a rowdy sheet against the appellant for the reason that the appellant was involved in Cr. No. 111/97 on the file of Law and Order, Machavaram Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 326, 323, 342, 363, 353, 506 and 427 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the Damage to the Public Property Act. Earlier, a ease was registered against the appellant in Cr. No. 70/96 by the Law & Order Police of Machavaram and after investigation the same was registered as C.C. No. 184/97 and the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada after trial acquitted the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant was required in Cr. No. 111/97 for his alleged involvement in the above offences. Aggrieved by the listing of the appellant's name in the rowdy sheet bearing rowdy sheet No. 41 /97, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 34686 of 1997. The learned single Judge, after hearing both sides dismissed the writ petition by giving reasons that the appellant is a habitual offender and his acts resulted in causing disturbance to public peace and tranquility and as such, there was no illegality in opening the rowdy sheet against the appellant. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant preferred this Writ Appeal.

2. Sri K. Srinivas Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant criticised the order passed by the learned single Judge on the ground that the learned single Judge was not justified in accepting the action of the Police in opening the rowdy sheet against the appellant as correct. He contends that the learned single Judge should have noticed that opening of a rowdy sheet, though at the outset appears to be not of a serious nature, but it will have a stigma on a person whose name is found in the rowdy sheet. As such, the authorities should have been more cautious in opening the rowdy sheet. According to him, opening of a rowdy sheet shall be preceded by continuous acts of a person which arc criminal in nature and which result in disturbance of public peace and tranquility in the area. Further, he shall also be a habitual offender. Thus arguing, he sought that the appeal be allowed and the order of the learned single Judge be set aside.

"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 organisation' 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 measure 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."

6. The question involved in this Writ Appeal is almost similar to the one involved in Kamma Bapuji's case (1 supra). 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 !he 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 should have taken these aspects into consideration before accepting the opening of rowdy sheet against the appellant as correct: Probably, 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 (1 supra) 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 is set aside. We are completely in agreement with the order of the learned single Judge (B. Sudershan Reddy, J.) rendered in Kamma Bapuji's case (1 supra).