B. Sudershan Reddy, J.:— The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P No. 14104 of 1994 is the appellant in this appeal. He is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Page: 380Judge disposing of the said writ petition filed by him with a direction to the respondents to review the rowdy sheet in accordance with law, taking into consideration the subsequent conduct of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. The said order is challenged on various grounds.
2. In order to consider the question as to whether the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity requiring our interference, necessary facts leading to filing of this writ appeal may have to be noticed: The appellant herein invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to delete his name from the Rowdy Sheet No. 25, dated 15-12-1991 duly declaring the action of the respondents as illegal and void.
3. According to the appellant, he was falsely implicated as Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 45 of 1990 on the file of Pattabhipuram Law and Order Police Station, Guntur for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. That after registration of the said crime on 16-6-1990, the second respondent herein had opened the Rowdy sheet No. 25, dated 15-12-1991 as against the appellant herein registering him as a rowdy sheeter. The said action of the respondents herein is challenged on the ground that the same is not in accordance with the procedure contemplated in S.O No. 742 of the Police Standing Orders. It was contended before the learned single Judge that there is no justification on the part of the respondents in opening the rowdy sheet against the appellant herein. The action on the part of the respondents, according to the appellant, is ultra vires.
5. The third respondent-Sub-Inspector of Police. Pattabhipuram Law and Order Police Station, Guntur filed a detailed counter affidavit in which it is inter alia stated that on 18-6-1990 a case in Crime No. 45/90 was registered against the appellant herein on the complaint of one Kodali Surya Chandra Rao. The appellant herein was apprehended and later released on bail. A charge sheet was filed under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 23-7-1990.
6. However, in the counter affidavit, it is further stated that rowdy sheet was opened against the appellant on 15-12-1991 as per the orders of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. Guntur Town. It is alleged that the appellant and his accomplices were “acknowledged associates and are known in the locality for their anti-social tendencies, aggressive behaviour and criminal activities.” Peculiarly, the respondents stated in the counter affidavit that a case in Crime No. 57/91 for the offence under Page: 381Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the family members of the appellant herein on 27-3-1992 and another case in Crime No. 35/92 was registered against the others who were shown as accused in Crime No. 45/90, in which the appellant herein is one of the accused.
7. It is not known as to the relevancy of those cases for opening of the rowdy sheet as against the appellant herein.
8. The fact remains that the appellant herein is involved in only one case i.e in Crime No. 45/90, which is later numbered as C.C No. 218 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the learned VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur.
9. The short question that falls for consideration is as to whether the rowdy sheet opened against the appellant herein on 15-12-1991 is in conformity with the Police Standing Orders?
10. It is clear from a perusal of Standing Order No. 742 that to include a person's name in a rowdy sheet, such person shall be a habitual offender i.e, he must habitually commit or abet the commission of offences involving breach of peace.
11. In Puttagunta Pasi v. Commissioner of Police (1), 1998 (3) ALT 55 (D.B), a Division Bench of this Court after referring to various decisions of this Court observed:
“From the above, 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 (1997) (6) ALD 583, 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.”
12. 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 Police Officer in exercise of the powers conferred under S.O No. 742 of the Police Standing Orders. The term “Rowdy” has been defined 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 two 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 at all such police stations. (G.O.Ms No. 656, Home (Police-D) Department, dated 8-4-1971).
(2) Instructions in Order 735 regarding discontinuance of History sheets shall also apply to rowdy sheets.”
13. The question that is required to be considered in every case is as to when a person can be called as a person who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace? Whether involvement of a person even in a solitary case resulting in a breach of the peace is enough to characterise such person as a person who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace?
14. The very expressions ‘habitually commit’, ‘attempt to commit’ and ‘abet the commission of offences indicate the requirement that at least two or more cases have been registered against the person concerned to characterise such person as a person who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences.
15. In Ejaz v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2), 1997 (6) ALD 587, this Court observed:
“However, there cannot be any doubt that the Police Officer who is entrusted with the responsibility of classifying the person as a rowdy and opening of rowdy-sheets are under the duty and obligation to consider the applicability of Standing Order strictly and confine the entry in the rowdy-sheet only to such class of persons mentioned in the Standing Order and it is not as if the Police have the power and opportunity to enter the names of whoever they like in the said register. The expression like ‘by Page: 383habit, ‘habitual’ ‘desperate’, ‘dangerous’, ‘hazardous’ cannot be flung in the face of man with laxity of semantics. The Court must insist on specificity of facts and be satisfied that one swallow does not make a summer and a consistent course of conduct convincing enough to draw the rigorous inference that by confirmed habit, which is second nature.”
16. We are required to notice that the word ‘habit’ implies a tendency or capacity resulting from the frequent repetition of the same acts. The words by ‘habits’ and ‘habitually’ imply frequent practice or use. The word ‘habit’ means persistence in doing an act, a fact which is capable of proof by adducing evidence of the commission of a number of similar acts. “Habitually” must be taken to mean repeatedly or persistently. (See: The Law Lexicon).
17. It is thus clear that unless the acts complained of are more than one, it cannot be held that the involvement of a person even in a solitary case itself forms the basis for classifying such person as ‘habitually committing the offences’ involving disturbance to the public peace and tranquility.
18. In Kamma Bapuji v. Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram (3), 1997 (6) ALD 583, this Court observed:
“A plain reading of clause (a) of S.O 742 leads to inescapable conclusion that the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is absolutely right. A rowdy-sheet can be opened against a person classified as a rowdy, if such person habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offence involving breach of the peace. In plain language a person who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences alone can be classified as a rowdy and rowdy sheet can be opened, provided such offence relates to involving breach of the peace. If the offence even habitually committed, or attempted to be committed or abet commission of the offence, but not involving a breach of the peace, would not enable and authorise the police officer concerned to open rowdy sheet and classify a person as rowdy. It is in this area, a Police Officer has to consider the material available on record and satisfy himself that commission of offence habitually by a person has resulted or is likely to result in breach of peace. The satisfaction is required to be arrived at in an objective manner and on the basis of the material available on record.”
19. The appellant in the instant case is involved in one criminal case and charge sheet was filed against him under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Page: 384offences alleged against the appellant herein have nothing to do with the breach of peace. That solitary incident, in which the appellant herein is alleged to have involved, itself cannot constitute any basis or ground to classify him as a rowdy-sheeter. In the result, the rowdy sheet opened against the appellant herein is declared void and the same is accordingly quashed.
20. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed.
21. No order as to costs.
Comments