Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (2.52 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kamma Bapuji And Ors. vs Station House Officer, ... on 14 November, 1997
In Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Officer,
Brahmasamudram8, wherein the persons in whose names rowdy sheets
were opened were involved in two cases but they were acquitted in both,
it was sought to be contended on behalf of the police authorities that the
rowdy sheets were opened during the pendency of the cases and that
acquittal therein would be of no consequence thereafter. While dealing
with the said facts of the said case, the learned Judge rejected the said
contention and held that rowdy sheets could not be opened in a casual
and mechanical manner and a person could not be dubbed a 'habitual
offender' merely because he was involved in two criminal cases.
Puttagunta Pasi Alias Penta Pasi vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr. on 4 February, 1998
In Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police,
Vijayawada9, a Division Bench confirmed the said principle holding that
a rowdy sheet could not be opened against an individual in a casual and
mechanical manner and due care and caution should be taken by the
7
. 1987(2) ALT 904
8
. 1997 (6) ALD 583
9
. 1998(3) ALT 55 (DB)
10
KL,J
W.P.No.11185 of 2021
police before characterizing a person as a rowdy. The Division Bench
expressed agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in
Kamma Bapuji8 that figuring as an accused in two crimes would not be
sufficient to categorize a person as a 'habitual offender'.
Mohammed Quadeer And Others vs Commissioner Of Police, Hyderabad And ... on 30 March, 1999
In Mohammed Quadeer v. Commissioner of Police,
Hyderabad10 it was held that A.P. Police Standing Orders were not
statutory in nature and were only a compilation of government orders
issued from time to time and they therefore did not invest the police
officers with any powers of arrest, detention, investigation of crimes etc.
not specifically conferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
or other enactments. As regards retention of a rowdy sheet, it was held
that opening of a rowdy sheet against a citizen was undoubtedly fraught
with serious consequences and the right to reputation under Article 21 of
the Constitution could not be deprived except in accordance with the
procedure established by law. The law which authorizes the police to
open rowdy sheets and exercise surveillance would have to be very
strictly construed.
Yerramsetti Venugopal Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 October, 2020
In W.P.No.19194 of 2012 dated 24.08.2015, by referring to
the above said provisions of the A.P. Police Manual and also the
principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it was held that the
requirement of involvement in at least more than two cases for inferring
that he was a habitual offender was not established. The opening of the
rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner therein was therefore tainted in
law in its very inception. Therefore, continuation of the said rowdy sheet
by the police authorities ignoring the law laid down by this Court as well
as the Supreme Court cannot be sustained. Accordingly, with the said
finding, the respondents therein were directed to close the rowdy sheet
being maintained in the name of the petitioner therein.