Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.V.RANGA RAJU, N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA
Puttagunta Pasi alias Penta Pasi - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada - Respondent
Decided On : 02-04-98
Bihar Control of Crimes Act – Sections 2 (d) and 12 – Madras City Police Act – Section 75 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 106,107,108 (c) and 110 (1) – Indian Penal Code, 1950 – Sections 147, 326, 323, 342, 363, 353, 506 and 427 – Damage to the Public property Act – Section 3 – Rowdy sheet – 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. – Held, It is clear that rowdy sheets cannot be opened against any individual in a casual and mechanical manner – Dubbing a person as an habitual offender and to open a rowdy sheet is not sufficient – On the other hand, due care and caution shall be taken by the Police before characterising a person as a rowdy – The important element that has to be seen in the acts of an offender is whether the acts so committed by a person will have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquility. – In Kamma Bapuji s case (supra), the learned single Judge, following the decisions already rendered by the Supreme Court and this Court as cited above, held that opening of a rowdy sheet against the petitioner therein viz. , Kamma Bapuji is incorrect – Question involved in this Writ Appeal is almost similar to the one involved in Kamma Bapuji s case (supra ). – Apart from this, the appellanthimself has filed an affidavit to-day 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 the 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 (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. – Court is completely in agreement with the order of the learned single Judge (B. Sudershan Reddy, J.) rendered in Kamma bapuji s case (supra ). – Writ Appeal Allowed
( 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 case was registered against the appellant in cr. No. 70/96 by the Law and 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 sheetno. 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 are criminal in nature and which result in disturbance of public peace fed 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.
( 3 ) IN support of his case, the learned Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Kamma Bapuji and others vs. Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram and another wherein this court interpreted the scope of Standing Order 741 relating to opening of a rowdy sheet and when it has to be opened. Whereas, Sri J. K. Qureshi, learned govt. Pleader for Home supported the action of the Police in opening the rowdy sheet. According to him, the order passed by the learned single Judge is correct. He maintained that though the earlier proceedings resulted in acquittal, but subsequently another case was registered against the appellant in Cr. No. 111/97 from which it is clear that the appellant is a habitual offender and thus opening of a rowdy sheet against him is a just one. He contends that the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant has no relevance to this case on facts.
( 4 ) A person can be listed in the rowdy sheet on the basis of an order passed either by the Superintendent of Police or a Sub-Divisional Officer in exercise of the powers conferred under S. O. 742 of the Police Standing Orders. The word rowdy has been defined as follows:"rowdies: (1) The following persons may be classified as rowdies and rowdy sheets (Form 88) may be opened for them under the or
SupremeToday
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
