Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N, J
Moka Siva Ramakrishna – Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioners are challenging the in-action on part of the respondents in closing the suspect sheet which was opened vide proceedings No.C.No.003/SDPO-A/2013, Dated 07.01.2013 and C.No.27/SDPO-A/2016, dated 19.05.2016 respectively.
2. The petitioner in WP.No.30782 of 2024 was shown as A.1 in CC.No.164 of 2011, A.2 in CC.No.560 of 2011 and A.3 in CC.No.310 of 2012 and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 17.04.2015, 12.01.2015 and 16.12.2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kothapeta.
3. The petitioner in WP.No.30849 of 2024 was arraigned as Accused No.1 in CC.No.196 of 2016 and Accused No.3 in CC.No.17.11.2017 and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 29.07.2017, 17.11.2017 Accused No.7 in SC.No.407 of 2017 and acquitted vide judgment dated 10.07.2019 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothapeta.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have not closed the suspect sheet though there is no other case pending against the petitioners and the only case which was registered against the petitioners ended up in acquittal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that continuation of histo
The continuation of history sheets against acquitted individuals without pending cases infringes upon their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.
Continuation of history sheets against acquitted individuals without pending cases violates fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.
Continuation of a rowdy sheet without pending cases infringes on fundamental rights, including the right to dignity and privacy, and lacks legal justification under police standing orders.
History sheets require objective justification and periodic review for extensions under PSO 746-748 to protect Article 21 rights.
History sheets require reasoned extensions based on materials, balancing police surveillance with Article 21 rights.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice when opening history sheets, requiring police to provide individuals an opportunity to contest such actions.
A person cannot be labeled a habitual offender unless they have three convictions, and police must adhere to legal standards when opening history sheets to protect fundamental rights.
The opening of a history sheet against an individual must be in accordance with the relevant police rules and should not offend the individual's fundamental rights, particularly Article 21 of the Con....
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
