Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that, in connection with the above crime, the petitioners were acquitted in Sessions Case No.201 of 2010 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Ramachandrapuram, vide Judgment dated 26.03.2012 and therefore, opening/continuation of Rowdy Sheets against the petitioners, is illegal, arbitrary and requested to issue a direction as stated above.

The third respondent-The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District filed counter affidavit denying the material allegations, inter alia admitting that the Rowdy Sheets have been opened against the petitioners due to their involvement in Sessions Case No.201 of 2010 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram which is the subject matter of Crime No.58 of 2009 for the offenses punishable under Sections 307, 341 r/w.Section 34 IPC. It is also stated that, in view of the involvement of the petitioners in the above murder case, to curb and curtail their unlawful activities, after obtaining necessary orders from the then Sub Divisional Police Officer, Ramachandrapuram, respective Rowdy Sheets are opened against the petitioners and thus, strictly adhering to the procedure contemplated under Standing Order 601 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, the Rowdy Sheets are opened and being continued in view of Standing Order 602(2) of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. It is also stated that, there is every possibility of the petitioners repeating commission of similar offences. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that though the murder case in which the petitioners are involved, has ended in acquittal, villagers are not coming forward due to fear to lodge any report against them for complaining public offences. Hence, the Rowdy Sheets cannot be closed.

Whereas, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contended that, by exercising power under Clause(2) of Standing Order 602 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, the respondents can continue the Rowdy Sheets opened against the petitioners and requested to dismiss the petition.

Undoubtedly, the petitioners are involved in Crime No.58 of 2009, on the file of the fourth respondent-Station House Officer, Biccavole Police Station East Godavari District for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341 r/w.34 IPC and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anaparthi, who in-turn, committed the case to Sessions Divisions and later made over to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. The case was numbered as Session Case No.201 of 2010. After trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the petitioners not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341 r/w.34 IPC and acquitted them. But, still Rowdy Sheets were opened against the petitioners on 26.03.2012 by the fourth respondent-Station House .LAWS (APH) 2014 387 .LAWS (APH) 2014 387 Officer, Bocavole Police Station, which is being continued even after acquittal of the petitioners for the grave offences.

Therefore, for continuation of Rowdy Sheets opened against the petitioners, it should not preclude the SD/DCP/CP to continue the petitioners' history sheets or rowdy sheets if the SD/DCP/CP is of the considered view that the petitioners' activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or one affecting public peace and tranquility in the area as the victims are not coming forward to lodge a complaint against the petitioners on account of threat from them. The first part of Clause (2) of Standing Order 602 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual with regard to the involvement of the petitioners in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting public peace and tranquility, is not pleaded in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents/Police to continue the Rowdy Sheets. Similarly, a vague allegation is made in the counter affidavit that, on account of criminal background of the petitioners, as they are involved in attempt to murder case, no villager has turned up to the police station to lodge any fresh complaint due to fear. The requirement to continue Rowdy Sheets opened against the petitioners under Second Part of Clause (2) of Standing Order 602 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual is that, on account of threat from the petitioners, as no villager is coming forward to lodge a report before the police. This contention is mischievous and not supported by any material and no details have been submitted to this Court.

Regarding involvement of the petitioners in any crime and threatening any person not to lodge any report against them is concerned, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioners. This Court dealt with the similar issue in Yerramseti Venugopal Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh3 where 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"