B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in the instant writ petition pray for issuance of an appropriate, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening rowdy sheet against the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and ultra vires the Police Standing Orders.

( 2 ) THE petitioners herein were involved in Cr. No. 33/94 of Brahamasamudram Police Station registered under sections 147, 148, 324, 355, 452 r/w 149 I. P. C. They were also accused in another Crime No. 22/94 of the same Police Station under sections 302 read with 34, I. P. C. Both the cases were subsequently registered as C. C. No. 28/95 and S. C. No. 173/95 and after trial all the petitioners were acquitted by judgments dated 5-8-1996 and 10-6-1996, respectively.

( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, there are no other cases either registered or pending against the petitioners. The said crimes were registered against the petitioners on 6-10-1994 and 16-12-1994. Even during the trial of these cases, there were no other cases in which the petitioners were involved.

( 4 ) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in insisting them to get their photographs for the purpose of display in the Police Station. It is at that stage, the petitioners have learnt that a rowdy sheet was opened against them under the Police Standing Order No. 742. The said action of the respondents in opening the rowdy sheet, as well as insistence to supply the photographs for the purpose of display in the police-station is assailed in this writ petition.

( 5 ) IN the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the rowdy sheet was opened on the direction of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Anantapur in the year 1995 itself, as the petitioner were involved in two cases referred to herein above. It is clear from the allegations in the counter-affidavit that the rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioners during the pendency of the said two criminal cases. According to the respondents, acquittal of the petitioners in the said two criminal cases is of no consequence and the rowdy sheet opened against them need not be closed. Photographs were taken to have an identity of the petitioners to cheek their movements and to maintain peace in the locality.

( 6 ) STANDING Order 742 of A. P. Police Standing Orders authorises opening of rowdy sheets under the order of the Superintendent of Police or Sub-Divisional Officer, against the persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offences involving breach of the peace. S. O. 742 reads as under : "rowdies : (1) The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy sheets (Form 88) may be opened for them under the order of the Superintendent of Police or Sub-divisional Officer : (a) persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offences involving a breach of the peace; (b) persons bound over under sections 106, 107, 108 (c) and 110 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) (c) persons who have been convicted more than once in the consecutive years under section 75 of the Madras City Police Act or under Section 3, Clause 12 of the Towns Nuisances Act; (d) persons who habitually tease women and girls by passing indecent remarks or otherwise; and (e) in the case of rowdies residing in an area under one Police Station but are found to be frequently visiting the area under one or more other Police Stations their rowdy sheets can be maintained all such Police Stations. (G. O. Ms. No. 656, Home (Police D) Dept. dt. 8-4-1971) (2) Instructions in Order 735 regarding discontinuance of History sheets shall also apply to Rowdy sheets.

( 7 ) A bare reading of the Standing Order would reveal that no person could be characterised and classified as a rowdy and no rowdy sheet as such can be opened unless the case of such person falls in any one or more of the categories mentioned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document