Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
Sunkara Satyanarayana - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 10-15-99
Constitution of India – Article 136 , 226 , 32 , 11 , 17 , 8 , 14 , 19 and 21 - Indian Penal Code , 1860 - Sections 324 , 342 , 506 , 395 , 402 , 447 , 441 , 220 , 330 and 331 - Criminal Procedure Code , 1973 - Sections 357 , 51 , 109 , 106 and 107 - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Section 30 - State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 - Section 29 - Madras City Police Act - Section 75 - Police Act, 1861- Section 46 , 9 and 3 - Bombay Police Act - Section 27 and 57 - Human Rights - Seek to punish violation of right to life - Facts in this case are not in dispute - A crime was registered against petitioner - In both cases, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment - On conviction a K. D. Sheet town police station was opened against him - History sheet was opened by third respondent under Police Standing Order of A. P. Police Standing Orders - According to petitioner are no cases against him but history sheet opened against him is being continued - It is also his case that are are no cases pending against him as on date of filing of writ petition and he is not habitual offender - He did not resort to any action, which resulted in breach of peace in society - Respondents continued history sheet though are no circumstances warranting opening or continuing history sheet - Requirements are not at all complied with - Petitioner further submits that as per PSO 735 where retention of history sheet is considered necessary after two years of opening of sheet, order of a Gazetted Police Officer must be taken for extention of period in first instance up to end of next December, and for further annual extention from January to December of each subsequent year - Petitioner is also aggrieved that are is no valid review by competent authority to decide as to whether history sheet opened is being continued for last which amounts to violation of right to equality and right to freedom and liberty guaranteed -Therefore, petitioner approached this Court for appropriate orders and direction to respondents to delete name of petitioner from record of station crime history - After receiving notice before admission, third respondent filed counter-affidavit and also produced history sheet town police station – Held , Relying on various judgments of Supreme Court - Court have to hold that obtrusive surveillance on petitioner violated right to life and liberty - This criticism can only be met by this police by producing valid reasons before this Court - In my considered opinion competent gazetted Police Officer has not at all applied mind while passing orders -Pendency of petty cases under Gaming Act cannot be ground for retention of history sheet - Even on this it is to be noticed that with regard to petty case for same offence, fine was imposed in summary trial cases -Offences against a person under Gaming Act, if any, do not furnish any ground for opening a history sheet - Therefore, it has to be held that fundamental rights of petitioner to life and liberty have been grossly violated by respondents -Spirit of relevant Police Standing Orders have not been kept in view - There is considerable force in submission of learned counsel for petitioner that retention of history sheet against petitioner is arbitrary and violates human rights of petitioner - As held by Supreme Court opening and retention of rowdy sheet or history sheet consequences of which is obtrusive surveillance, would give a remedy to citizen, petitioner herein, to seek for protection of this Court - In such factual context this Court is bound to protectright to life and liberty of petitioner who once committed an offence because of his social backwardness and economic backwardness - While coming to conclusion that there is necessity for retention of history sheet, concerned gazetted Police Officer has not considered allrelevant aspects before recording reasonable belief that a person is likely to commit crime -Various orders passed from time to time andone passed is not in conformity with law laid down by Supreme Court as noticed by this Court above - As already noticed, there are no cases requiring police to open/retain history sheet - Writ petition allowed
V. V. S. RAO, J.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Truck driver. He is in private service. He has been residing in Gudivada town of Krishna District eking out his livelihood by working as a lorry driver for the last two years. He has a family depending on him. In this writ petition he has prayed this Court for declaration that the action of the respondent in maintaining history sheet No. 615 in II town police station. Gudivada against the petitioner as illegal and unconstitutional and consequential direction to the respondents to close the history sheet of the petitioner.
( 2 ) THE facts in this case are not in dispute. A crime was registered against the petitioner under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I. P. C. for short) in 1972 and also in 1976. In both the cases, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment. On conviction a K. D. Sheet (history sheet) No. 615 in II town police station, gudivada was opened against him. The history sheet was opened by the third respondent under Police Standing Order (hereinafter referred to as PSO) 734 of the A. P. Police Standing Orders. According to the petitioner there are no cases against him since 1977, but the history sheet opened against him is being continued. It is also his case that there are no cases pending against him as on the date of filing of the writ petition and he is not habitual offender. He did not resort to any action, which resulted in breach of the peace in the society. The respondents continued the history sheet though there are no circumstances warranting opening or continuing the history sheet. The requirements of PSO 734 are not at all complied with. The petitioner further submits that as per PSO 735 where retention of history sheet is considered necessary after two years of the opening of the sheet, the order of a Gazetted Police Officer must be taken for the extention of the period in the first instance up to the end of next December, and for further annual extention from January to December of each subsequent year. The petitioner is also aggrieved that there is no valid review by the competent authority to decide as to whether the history sheet opened in 1972 is being continued for the last 27 years, which amounts to violation of right to equality and right to freedom and liberty guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court for appropriate orders and direction to the respondents to delete the name of the petitioner from the record of the station crime history . After receiving notice before admission, the third respondent filed counter-affidavit and also produced the history sheet No. 615 of II town police station, Gudivada.
( 3 ) THE counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent justifies the continuation of the history sheet No. 615 on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He was involved in several offences like theft, house-breaking. He was also bound over under Sections 109 and 110 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C. for short ). Since 1971, the petitioner was involved in 11 crimes and that Cr. No. 60 of 1998 under Sections 324, 342, 506 r/w. 34, IPC is pending for trial. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner was convicted in all the cases. Though the history sheet was opened in 1973, as the petitioner is a habitual offender, the history sheet was not closed. Nonetheless, the history sheet of the petitioner is being reviewed from time to time till December, 1998. The other allegations made by the petitioner are denied by the respondents.
( 4 ) IN the counter-affdavit, the third respondent has furnished the list of crimes involving the petitioner. An analysis of the same is as follows : @@ s. No. Name of the police station offence U/s. Remarks 1. Cr. No. 272 to 275/71 of Town P. S. Gudivada 109, Cr. P. C. Convicted 2. Cr. No. 125/72 to 126/72 Gudivada Town P. S. 380, I. P. C.-do- 3. Cr. No. 323/74 of Gudivada Police Station 457, I. P.
gpt-4
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
